Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FINANCE

Fringe Benefits

Mr. Ashley: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps he is taking to tax the perquisites given in British industry.

The Minister of State, Treasury (Mr. Denzil Davies): The perquisites of an employment which are in cash or can be converted into cash are already taxable and there are special rules governing benefits provided for company directors or employees earning £5,000 a year or more. As my right hon. Friend said in his last Budget Statement, it is his intention to take further action on fringe benefits.

Mr. Ashley: Is my hon. Friend aware that we receive many loud complaints from wealthy Conservatives shouting through the windows of their Rolls-Royces about abuses of the tax system by people on unemployment pay and social security benefits? But is he aware of the abuses of the tax system by a large number of upper management who receive "perks" worth millions of pounds, including interest-free loans, housing, entertainment and a variety of other things? Does he realise that while the Chancellor does nothing the broadest backs get the biggest gift packages? Will he now stop acting as Santa Claus to these people and don the robe of Robin Hood?

Mr. Davies: As my hon. Friend says, there are abuses throughout the tax system and people at the higher levels have a better opportunity to reduce their tax burden than people at the lower levels. As I said, my right hon. Friend is looking

at these matters urgently, but I could not anticipate his Budget Statement.

Mr. Grylls: Would the Minister note that, if the Chancellor is to cut fringe benefits in future, he will have to consider lowering the higher rates of tax or even the middle rates of tax, especially for management, since holding management in this country is becoming increasingly difficult because of the competition with similar groups in Europe paying lower rates of tax?

Mr. Davies: The hon. Gentleman should appreciate that people at the lower levels of income also pay high marginal rates of tax and do not have the benefit of the fringe benefits available to people on the higher rates. One must consider the total picture.

Mr. Mike Thomas: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is satisfied that he is collecting the appropriate amount of revenue under the provisions of Part VIII of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1970 in so far as the taxation of loan, mortgage or overdraft facilities provided by employers at less than market rates of interest is concerned; and whether he will now collect information on this topic.

Mr. Denzil Davies: The provision of loan, mortgage or overdraft facilities at less than market rates of interest which does not involve the employer in any expense is not taxable under the provisions of Part VIII of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1970. But, as my right hon. Friend said in his last Budget Statement, it is his intention to take further action on fringe benefits.

Mr. Thomas: Is my hon. Friend aware that one cannot conceivably say that when someone gets, as many tens of thousands do, a loan or a mortgage at perhaps 2 per cent. or 3 per cent. interest instead of the going rate of 11 per cent., 12 per cent., 13 per cent. or 14 per cent., that does not constitute a fringe benefit? Is my hon. Friend satisfied with the way in which tax authorities interpret these arrangements? Moreover, is he satisfied with the arrangement, which I understand that many merchant banks have in the City, whereby their directors and senior employees draw on overdraft accounts with their own banks and pay


no interest on the money that they borrow?

Mr. Davies: I do not think that it is a case of the tax authorities applying the law, or the way in which they interpret it: it is a loophole in the law. It is extremely difficult to prove that there is an expense to the employer in providing these facilities. This is one fringe benefit among a number. We are looking at this matter closely.

Sir A. Meyer: Will the hon. Gentleman tread a little carefully in this matter? There are, as he is aware, a number of nationalised enterprises which provide preferential rates on mortgages for their employees.

Mr. Davies: Yes, I do not doubt that. This practice is not confined to the private sector, but it is confined in the main to persons with very high incomes. People on high incomes—and those on lower incomes—suffer high marginal rates of tax.

Owner-Occupiers (Tax Relief)

Mr. Frank Allaun: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what saving he would obtain if tax relief to owner-occupiers were restricted to the standard rate of tax, to mortgages of under £10,000 or £15,000 in Greater London and to those in both these categories.

Mr. Denzil Davies: If tax relief to owner-occupiers were restricted to the basic rate the saving would be approximately £60 million for 1975–76. I am afraid that the information on which to base reliable estimates for the remaining part of the Question is not available.

Mr. Allaun: Will my hon. Friend consult the Secretary of State for the Environment about introducing these limits and transferring a substantial benefit—several hundreds of millions of pounds—to poorer people to help them to overcome their far more serious housing problems, particularly since a 25–year mortgage of £15,000 at 11 per cent. means that those on the standard tax rate get no less than £28,840 in tax relief at present?

Mr. Davies: As my hon. Friend knows, an inquiry into housing finance is being conducted by the Secretary of State for

the Environment. Taxation matters wilt be taken into account—not only the subsidy for owner-occupiers, but subsidies to council tenants. It will take some time before that inquiry is completed, but we shall take all these matters into consideration.

Mr. Michael Latham: Is the hon Gentleman aware that the private housing market is closely knit and that to undertake any such suggestion as the hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Allaun) has made would have an absolutely disastrous effect on the whole market?

Mr. Davies: These matters will be taken into account during the review of housing finance.

Sir G. Howe: Will the Minister further take into account the fact that 80 per cent. of first-time house buyers buy second-hand houses at the lower end of the market and that any attempt at selective withdrawal of mortgage interest relief at the upper end would only increase demand at the lower end and reduce supply, so shoving up the price that first-time buyers would have to pay? Therefore, would he counsel the Secretary of State for the Environment to reject this kind of suggestion?

Inflation

Mr. Canavan: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the latest estimate of the rate of inflation.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Denis Healey): The retail price index rose by 25·2 per cent. over the 12 months to November compared with October's figure of 25·9 per cent. The year-on-year rate of increase has now fallen in three successive months, and substantial further slowing down in the rate of inflation will follow if the £6 pay limit is observed as completely in future as it has been so far.

Mr. Canavan: In view of the OECD report published today, which forecasts a rate of inflation in 1976 of some 15¼ per cent. combined with a zero growth rate and with 1½ million unemployed, will my right hon. Friend abandon his policy of attempting to use unemployment to beat inflation? Does he realise that his statement yesterday was like a Christmas gift


from Scrooge? Will he now try a policy of full employment combined with public ownership of the economy in order to beat inflation?

Mr. Healey: My hon. Friend has misquoted the OECD report on both the rate of inflation that it predicts for the coming year and on the increase in output. On the other hand, the report projects an increase in unemployment to nearly 1½ million by the end of the year, a greater rate of increase than I believe will take place. My hon. Friend must accept the view that I hold, which is held by the General Council of the TUC, that the cause of unemployment at present is primarily the international recession and that unemployment has been increased by excessive wage increases earlier in the year. I hope that we shall have his support, like that of the overwhelming mass of working people, in our fight to reduce the rate of inflation so that unemployment can also be reduced.

Mr. Lawson: Would it not be better for the Chancellor to come clean and admit that the reduction in the rate of inflation is a consequence of the recession? Will the tell the House what in his view is the cause of the rate of inflation? When he talks of the past rate of inflation, he tends to ascribe it to the money supply and the public sector borrowing requirement. When he is talking about the present rate of inflation, it seems to be the incomes policy. Can he reconcile his rather schizoid analyses?

Mr. Healey: Some day the hon. Gentleman may learn that major economic phenomena have more than one cause and that the mixture of causes varies from time to time, certainly from year to year and sometimes from month to month. Among the factors responsible for the current rate of inflation are the big increase in import prices over recent years, notably the increase in the price of oil, the excessive increase in the money supply, which was engineered by the previous Conservative Administration in 1973—on that element at least I think he and I are at one—and the excessive wage increases earlier this year. However, the hon. Gentleman's understanding of these matters will never advance unless he is prepared to recognise that complex phenomena have complex causes.

Mr. Mike Thomas: Will my right hon. Friend accept that an important part of his strategy for the next 12 months is the price restraint scheme? How does he propose to sell that scheme to private industry if, as appears to be the case, he has allowed the nationalised industries to escape it?

Mr. Healey: My hon. Friend is completely mistaken about the nationalised industries. Their price increases are as severely controlled by the Price Commission as those of any private firm. It is true that some nationalised industries' prices and charges have risen faster than those in the private sector, because the Government have set themselves on the path of phasing out the subsidies given to the nationalised industries by the previous Conservative Administration. However, I am told from time to time that we now have the support of the Opposition Front Bench.

Mr. Nott: Although we appreciate that the Chancellor's analysis of the causes of inflation varies from day to day to suit his arguments and those of the Labour Party, nevertheless can he quote the retail price index on a more consistent basis? At the time of the last General Election, he quoted it on a three-month basis to give him a rate of inflation of 8·4 per cent. Yesterday, he quoted it on a six-month basis in order to support his argument for a fall in the rate of inflation. Can it be given on a consistent basis so that the country can understand his policies and their degree of success?

Mr. Healey: I am always happy to be lectured on consistency by the hon. Gentleman who presided as a Minister in the Treasury over precisely that increase in the money supply which since the General Election he has stigmatised so fiercely. He says that he is concerned about the rate of increase in inflation and whether it is on a three-month, a six-month or a 12-month basis. I have given him the 12-month figure. The annual rate of increase over the past three months was only 14·8 per cent.

Unemployment and Prices

Mr. Atkinson: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will seek to arrange the setting up of an advisory


group of Socialist economists whose function would be to show how both unemployment and prices can be reduced simultaneously.

The Paymaster-General (Mr. Edmund Dell): No, Sir. My right hon. Friend already receives a range of advice from Socialist economists. However, our policies are perfectly clear. The key to reducing inflation and unemployment lies in the policies set out in our July White Paper, "The Attack on Inflation" (Cmnd. 6151). The route back to full employment must be through higher exports and improved investment.

Mr. Atkinson: With the greatest respect to the right hon. Gentleman, this Question was intended for the Chancellor and it is obvious that he has ducked it. Therefore, I have no desire to put a supplementary question to my right hon. Friend.

Norwegian Kroner

Mr. Crawford: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the exchange rate between the £ sterling and the Norwegian kroner at the latest available date and what was the exchange rate at comparable dates in 1974, 1973 and 1972.

Mr. Edmund Dell: £1 equalled 11·243 kroner on 17th December this year and 12·275, 13·075 and 15·46 at comparable dates in the years in question.

Mr. Crawford: Is the Minister aware that the happy revaluation of the Norwegian kroner in the past few years is precisely the sort of thing that will happen to the oil-backed Scots pound of a self-governing Scotland? Will he not agree that a self-governing Scotland will benefit much more from a strong £ Scots than it does at present from the paltry piece of green paper that passes for the £ sterling? Is he not further aware that one of the first duties and responsibilities of a self-governing Scotland will be to assist its friends and neighbours in England to regain their prosperity, too?

Mr. Dell: Scotland will benefit most from an integrated United Kingdom economy. An examination of the experience of many industrialised countries since the war shows that success in achieving greater prosperity does not rely upon the availability of raw materials,

welcome though that is. We should do better to continue to improve our manufacturing industry in Scotland and in England.

Mr. Alexander Fletcher: Will the right hon. Gentleman remind the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. Crawford) that last night he voted for £162 million worth of the currency he despises?

Value Added Tax

Miss Fookes: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will take steps to aid manufacturers of television sets and boat builders by reducing the luxury rate of VAT from 25 per cent. to 8 per cent.

Mr. Denzil Davies: I am sure that the measures announced yesterday to relax hire-purchase and hiring restrictions will greatly assist the television and boat industries.
We shall also continue to monitor the position of these industries and all relevant information will be taken into account in our review of the effects of the 25 per cent. rate of Value Added Tax.

Miss Fookes: Where is the sense in increasing the price of home-produced sets and then worrying about the import of television tubes and setting up an elaborate system to monitor imports?

Mr. Davies: As has been repeatedly said, the recession in these industries is due mainly to the world recession. No one would deny that. It could be argued that the increase in the rate of VAT to 25 per cent. has had some effect, but we are monitoring the situation and when those results are at hand, we shall reconsider the matter.

Mr. Ward: Although I accept my hon. hon. Friend's answer in relation to luxury items on the higher rate schedule, will he accept that the items in Schedule I, to which his right hon. Friend the Chancellor referred as less essential, such as washing machines and refrigerators, are in part the essential working tools of working women? Will he undertake to give preference and an early relief to those items over the other luxuries to which he has just referred?

Mr. Davies: The 25 per cent. rate is not a tax on luxuries. It is a tax in a


difficult economic situation on what most people would consider to be non or less-essential goods. We are monitoring the effects and we shall consider the matter.

Mr. Ridsdale: Does the hon. Gentleman believe that a tax of £250 on the sale of a Thames barge which costs £1,000 is necessary? These barges are used for the transportation of goods and those who work on them are self-employed and cannot afford to pay this kind of tax.

Mr. Davies: We shall take these matters into account.

Mr. Jay: Has my hon. Friend noticed that all the suggestions from the Benches opposite today would further increase the public sector borrowing requirement?

Mr. David Howell: Will the Minister first correct his right hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) and point out that the Opposition view has always been that VAT at 10 per cent. is better than the absurd 25 per cent. high rate and would have increased not reduced the revenue? The right hon. Gentleman should face that fact.
Secondly, will the Minister face the idiotic position into which the Government have now manoeuvered themselves? He should remember that we spent the whole of May and June in the House warning the Government that if they put the high rate VAT on boats, electronic components, caravans and other items, they would damage those industries. Is it not absurd that they now come to the House with a package to ease hire purchase and import provisions governing television sets, boats and caravans? When will this up and down, hot and cold approach to British industry cease? When will this country have a chance to have a stable environment?

Mr. Davies: Perhaps I may remind the hon. Gentleman that he and his colleagues also voted to reduce the rate on television hiring contracts, thus increasing the public sector borrowing requirement.

Mr. David Howell: Answer the question.

Public Sector Borrowing Requirement

Mr. Gow: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps he is proposing to take in order to improve the monitoring

of the public sector borrowing requirement.

Mr. Healey: I am happy to be able to reassure the hon. Member. As my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury told him on 30th October, my officials are working continually on the improvement of information about developments in the public sector financial position.

Mr. Gow: Does the Chancellor remember that on 15th April, from that Dispatch Box, he told the House that a borrowing requirement in excess of £10,000 million would involve unacceptable risks? Does he also remember that on the same occasion he told the House that it was his intention to reduce the public sector borrowing requirement below that figure of £10,000 million by well over £1,000 million? Does he not now agree that to accept a PSBR for this year in excess of £12,000 million is to gamble recklessly with the finances of the country?

Mr. Healey: I certainly agree that in April I made the statement and the prediction to which the hon. Gentleman has referred. However like all my fellow Finance Ministers in every country which I have been able to check, I was mistaken about the depth of the recession this year. This has increased the PSBR beyond what I then expected, though it is too soon to say by precisely how much. However, I am happy to confirm what I told the House in the last debate—that, comparing like with like, our general Government deficit is substantially lower than that of West Germany at present and in the same range as that of most other Western countries.

Mrs. Bain: How much of Scottish oil has been staked as collateral against the PSBR?

Mr. Healey: None, Sir.

Mr. Watkinson: Will my right hon. Friend note that the Opposition particularly in defence debates, are always calling for increased expenditure, which would mean an increased PSBR? Will he further state that at the present level of unemployment it is necessary to maintain the PSBR at its present level, but that in the long term if we are to get the investment which my right hon. Friend requires


and which we all need, it is necessary to reduce the PSBR?

Mr. Healey: Yes, Sir, I agree with every word my hon Friend has said. My views on this matter are in line with those of all my colleagues in the Western World.

Sir G. Howe: Will not the Chancellor recognise that there is an important difference between the position in Germany, on which he continues to rely, and his own position? Whereas he has overshot his forecast for the PSBR by £3,000 million, the Germans appear to have managed to get their borowing requirement under expectation by £1,000 million.
Will not the right hon. Gentleman also recognise what will inescapably prove to be true—that the longer he goes on carrying a high and rising PSBR, the longer he will be putting off and retarding the prospect of an upturn in the private sector? He must begin to reduce the expectations of public sector borrowing if he is to see any chance of the revival in activity to which he is looking forward.

Mr. Healey: The right hon. and learned Gentleman is totally mistaken about Germany. The German public sector deficit is now estimated at almost twice the percentage of GDP at which it was estimated six months ago. It is true that a statistical mistake was made in Germany, according to German authorities, which has led to a recalculation of the deficit, as 7½ per cent. of GDP rather than 8 per cent. However, as I told the right hon. and learned Gentleman the other day, calculated by the same formula, even if the PSBR were as high as £12,000 million this year—which I do not believe it will be—our deficit will still be only 6½ per cent. of GDP.

Mr. Cyril Smith: Does the Chancellor agree that if he is to get long-term investment in industry and by industry, in adidtion to short-term he ought to be talking about long-term package deals? Is he aware that both employers and trade unions in the textile industry have this morning totally condemned as unrealistic and unhelpful the proposals that he made for the textile industry yesterday? I stress that it is trade unions as

well as employers. What long-term plans does he have for this industry?
Is he aware that yesterday evening in replying to the debate the Secretary of State for Employment totally ignored every observation about textiles and honest questions seeking clarification about the Chancellor's statement of yesterday? In the light of that, will the Chancellor undertake to look at yesterday's Official Report with a view to answering those questions in writing?

Mr. Healey: I am always ready to read debates and I always read with admiration the speeches of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment. Last night I was also able to listen to that speech with admiration. However, textual criticism of speeches by my colleagues does not arise on the Question of the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow).

Industrial Democracy

Mr. Golding: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what progress the Interdepartmental Committee on Industrial Democracy in the Public Sector has made.

Mr. Dell: As I told my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon (Mr. Moonman) on 16th December, in the first stage of the Government's study of industrial democracy in the nationalised industries we are finding out the views of all the interested parties. We discussed the study yesterday with representatives of the chairmen of the industries. We shall be consulting the TUC, and the individual unions concerned will be asked to give evidence.

Mr. Golding: Is it not ironic that individual unions have not yet been consulted? Will the Minister ensure that that is done as quickly as possible?

Mr. Dell: As I said in my main Answer, I assure my hon. Friend that unions will be consulted.

Mr. Adley: Which does the Paymaster-General think is the better exponent of good industrial democracy—Marks and Spencer or the Central Electricity Generating Board?

Mr. Dell: The nationalised industries have a very good record in this respect, and so does Marks and Spencer. Why should we not try to improve both?

Mr. Cryer: Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that he will take into account the development of industrial democracy at Chrysler by utilising the excellent report which the shop stewards have produced about the development of that company? Will he assure the House that the future of Chrysler will be bound up with the intimate working of industrial democracy and decision-making by the work people at the plants?

Mr. Dell: It is always open to companies to promote industrial democracy, and I hope that that happens at Chrysler. As my hon. Friend will know, an inquiry is now in progress into the promotion of industrial democracy in the private sector, and no doubt in any event, whatever happens in Chrysler, that will in due course have influence.

Negative Income Tax

Mr. Wigley: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will take steps in his next Budget to introduce a negative income tax.

Mr. Dell: The hon. Member will not expect me to anticipate the Budget Statement.

Mr. Wigley: In view of the plethora of means-tested benefits and the inertia which often works against those who most need help from the welfare systems, does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that a negative income tax, properly geared, with the right rates, would help to ensure that there was an effective safety net to help those most in need?

Mr. Dell: We have tried to improve the position of those most in need by improving a number of current means-tested benefits, and we propose to introduce others. One of the ways of helping people in need is in relation to the current very low threshold of the income tax system. These are all matters which my right hon. Friend must consider.

Mr. McCrindle: Until such time as we can introduce a negative income tax, will the right hon. Gentleman consider urging his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services to make far greater use of the family income supplement, which has the outstanding advantage of paying people while they remain in work?

Mr. Dell: Family income supplement was upgraded in July, and other means-tested benefits have been upgraded recently. All this helps people who are most in need.

Sir G. Howe: Does not the fact that the Minister acknowledges the serious implications of the low tax threshold, the fact that people on social security benefits are now paying tax, and the fact that widows on the standard rate of widow's benefit are now above the tax threshold, powerfully underline the case that we continue to make against the overall impossibly high burden of taxes imposed by this Government, and the overriding necessity, therefore, to get public spending under control?

Mr. Dell: My right hon. Friend has announced on many occasions what he intends to do about public expenditure in the next financial year, and there is further consideration of the years beyond, to help bring the problem of taxation under control.

Pornography

Mr. Raphael Tuck: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will seek to introduce a substantial tax on pornography.

Mr. Denzil Davies: No, Sir.

Mr. Tuck: Why does my right hon. Friend the Chancellor impose crippling taxes on Beethoven, Mozart, Bernard Shaw and Shakespeare while many people who are making fabulous profits out of pornographic literature get off scot-free? Why does he tax virtue and not vice? Although I am no Mary Whitehouse, may I ask my hon. Friend whether, as pornography is apparently here to stay, it would not net him a tidy sum if he made those who want their sexual appetites titillated pay for it through the nose?

Mr. Davies: I was not aware that people who made vast profits out of pornographic literature and films were getting away scot-free. If one wants to take action, the right and possibly courageous way is to do it through social legislation, not fiscal. I do not think that the Chairman of the Board of Inland Revenue would take kindly to having to watch films such as "Last Tango in Paris" to decide whether they were pornographic.

Mr. McCrindle: Would this be a tax on men only?

Pensioners (PAYE)

Mr. Richard Wainwright: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in respect of State pensioners without employment, he will require Government Departments to operate PAYE procedure in order to spare pensioners the procedure of direct assessment to income tax.

Mr. Denzil Davies: The arrangements for paying State pensioners differ in a number of important respects from the arrangements under which wages, salaries and occupational pensions are normally paid, and they do not readily lend themselves to the operation of PAYE. Consideration is currently being given to the possibility of devising a scheme for deduction of tax under PAYE from State pensions, including those where a direct assessment to tax on the pension would otherwise be necessary.

Mr. Wainwright: Will the hon. Gentleman undertake that the inquiry will go ahead and be implemented with all possible speed? Is he aware that, as a result of the abominable way in which income tax falls upon low incomes at present, people who are in receipt only of pensions not only have them taxed, but have all the worry and anxiety of receiving a sheaf of forms to which they have never been subject in their lives?

Mr. Davies: I entirely accept that there is a problem. The Inland Revenue calculates that 200,000 out of the 2½ million people who have to be taxed in respect of pensions and other income suffer from direct assessment. The majority are retired people with fairly large investment incomes. Despite that, it is a problem, and the Inland Revenue is putting into operation an extended instalment scheme whereby tax can be paid by more than four instalments during the year.

Mr. Carter-Jones: Does my hon. Friend agree that if an income tax debt arises through no fault of the pensioner, the Inland Revenue should be kind and dismiss it?

Mr. Davies: The Inland Revenue tries hard to be kind, and I think that in most circumstances it is. The normal arrangement is to pay by four instalments in the

year. As I said, we are considering a scheme whereby tax can be paid more often, and therefore with smaller sums in each instalment.

Widows

Mr. Durant: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will take steps to ensure that the tax liability of widows over 50 years of age is especially protected against the effects of inflation.

Mr. Denzil Davies: The rate of inflation is one of the factors which is taken into consideration in fixing the level of tax thresholds.

Mr. Durant: Will the Minister consider introducing extra tax relief in the first year of bereavement, the most crucial time for widows? Will he also urgently look at tax thresholds, which affect all these minority groups to such a great extent? Why do not the Government get their priorities right?

Mr. Davies: The problems of tax thresholds affect other taxpayers as well as widows. I accept that there is a problem, but I should correct a mistaken impression that the right hon. and learned Member for Surrey, East (Sir G. Howe) has given today, and before outside the House, that a widow who receives nothing more than the basic widow's pension in this tax year pays tax on it. She does not, because her pension is less than the single person allowance which she receives for the year 1975–76.

Mr. Ashley: Is my hon. Friend aware that it would be wrong to help widows without helping other single-parent families and that the Treasury should help both? I have always found the Treasury to be unimaginative and ungenerous in considering these groups. It is always prepared to give money to a dubious project involving motorways, motor cars or airports, rather than such groups. Will my hon. Friend ask my right hon. Friend to reconsider his values?

Mr. Davies: We have this problem very much in mind. There is a great difficulty within our tax system about giving relief to people at the lower end of the scale without giving it throughout the tax system. For instance, an increase of £100 in both the single allowance and married allowance costs more than £800


million a year. That goes to all taxpayers, not just those at the lower end of the scale. It is a problem that we have very much in mind.

Sir G. Howe: As the Minister challenged what I have been saying, does he accept that women receiving the standard rate of widow's benefit from the age of 60 over a full year are now receiving an income which takes them above the tax threshold? Does not the very problem which the hon. Gentleman has just identified, the expense of raising the tax threshold by even a modest amount, demonstrate beyond doubt that this Government are now taxing the poor to pay benefits to the poor? Does not that underline that we have reached the limit of the nation's taxable capacity and ram home the case for getting public spending under control? There are no more taxes to be raised.

Mr. Davies: A widow receiving the basic widow's pension in this year receives £637, if she has no other income. [Interruption.] I am talking about 1975–76. I said that in this year she will pay no tax on her income if her only income is the basic widow's pension. That is the mistake the right hon. and learned Gentleman has been making.

Nationalised Industries (Subsidies)

Mr. Walter Johnson: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will now slow down the phasing out of subsidies to the nationalised industries.

Mr. Dell: No, Sir. I still intend to phase out price restraint subsidies by the end of this financial year.

Mr. Johnson: Is not my right hon. Friend aware that the phasing out of subsidies to the nationalised industries, coupled with inflation, has forced up coal prices and gas and electricity charges so much that many of the lower-paid cannot afford to pay their bills? Is he aware that, as a result of increased transport charges and Post Office charges, there is now massive customer resistance in those areas? I ask my right hon. Friend to reconsider the matter.

Mr. Dell: I recognise that this is a difficult problem. It is a priority, especially in respect of the energy industries, to cease the subsidies. It is particularly

wrong that we should be subsidising them now. The proper way to deal with this difficult problem is through the social security system. I draw my hon. Friend's attention to the recent improvements in retirement benefits, supplementary benefit rates and the discretionary extra heating allowance.

Mr. Hurd: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that one of the difficulties the Government face is that on the whole employers in the nationalised industries and throughout the public sector have disregarded the Government's advice and treated the £6 as the minimum as well as the maximum? Will he confirm the figures that were given yesterday by my right hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Walker), which suggested that these increases, as a result of a disregard of Government policy, have amounted to £2·1 billion this year?

Mr. Dell: I did not hear the right hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Walker) give those figures. It is true that the £6 has been used as the increase almost entirely throughout both the public sector and the private sector, with a few exceptions in the private sector. That in no way detracts from the essential point that we need to phase out subsidies to the energy industries.

Mr. Wrigglesworth: Does my right hon. Friend agree that to continue these subsidies would be a regressive policy as it would subsidise the wealthier users of nationalised industry services? Does he also agree that to keep these subsidies going would compound losses in the nationalised industries by encouraging customers to use subsidised services, leading to greater and greater losses as the years go by?

Mr. Dell: There is a great deal in what my hon. Friend says. We have considered how far the problem may be resolved by reforms of tariff structures. There is no practical way of dealing with this problem except through the social security system.

Mr. Giles Shaw: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that one of the problems consistently pointed out in the Price Commission's report has been the increase in costs within the nationalised industries, quite apart from pricing and subsidy policies? What will the Government do


to ensure that costs within the nationalised industries are brought under stricter control?

Mr. Dell: That is part of the objective of the counter-inflation policy. We expect that the increase in nationalised industry prices next year will be substantially lower than the increase this year.

Finance for Industry

Mr. Wrigglesworth: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what recent consultations he has had with the Chairman of Finance for Industry.

Mr. Dell: None, Sir.

Mr. Wrigglesworth: Does my right hon. Friend agree that both Finance for Industry and the National Enterprise Board have complementary rôles to play? Does he agree that it helps no one, least of all British industry, to have the chairman of one of those bodies making vicious public attacks on the other?

Mr. Dell: I agree with my hon. Friend.

Road Fund Tax

Mr. Thin: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received concerning road fund tax payable on tractors used to haul fishing boats; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Denzil Davies: I have received one such representation, from my hon. Friend. I will be replying to him in due course, and in view of this I do not see that a statement is necessary.

Mr. Tinn: When considering this matter, will my hon. Friend note that the lower concessionary tax is still being applied in certain other ports and that there is a serious anomaly? I have little doubt that when the regulations were framed it was not appreciated that tractors were used for this purpose. I feel that if their use had been recognised, they would have been included in the exceptions that were granted.

Mr. Davies: As my hon. Friend knows, these matters are now being litigated. He will not expect me to comment on the litigation. I shall consider the matter carefully. If he has any evidence to show that there is a serious problem for the industry, it will be considered sympathetically.

Capital Transfer Tax

Dr. Phipps: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer by what amount the level of capital transfer tax would need to be increased to raise the same revenue envisaged for the wealth tax as proposed in the Green Paper.

Mr. Denzil Davies: The increase in rates which would be required to secure a yield equivalent to a wealth tax on illustrative Scale A would be about two-thirds, with a maximum rate of 100 per cent. applying to slices of capital over £150,000. For scale B the rates would need to be more than doubled with a similar maximum above £80,000. Both calculations are on the basis of the present capital transfer tax threshold and rate bands.

Dr. Phipps: Does my hon. Friend agree that both economically and socially the capital transfer tax is fundamentally more important and significant than the wealth tax? In view of the results of the Select Committee that considered wealth tax, does he think that the opportunity should be taken in the Budget to raise capital transfer tax levels significantly and to make them more progressive at higher rates?

Mr. Davies: I do not agree with my hon. Friend entirely. The two taxes are complementary. The capital transfer tax is a tax on the transfer of capital. The wealth tax is a tax on the accumulation and aggregation of capital. To that extent I do not think that they can be equated. However, we shall take into account their inter-relationship in framing our proposals.

Mr. Pardoe: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that we must regret that the Chancellor has not taken the opportunity of this Question to lash the Select Committee that considered wealth tax for its five reports? Will he confirm that the committee produced good value for money for the House? Will he undertake to tell his right hon. Friend that we do not want him to hide his reaction to the Select Committee in a Written Answer before the Christmas Recess?

Mr. Davies: Having served on the Select Committee and having seen how some Opposition Members tended to use


it as if it were a Standing Committee, I am not sure how much value we can draw from the evidence of the Select Committee.

Sir David Renton: When giving further thought to the capital transfer tax, will the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues bear in mind that the provisions relating to small or medium-sized discretionary trusts can bear very harshly on family properties which are not endowed with funds for periodic payments?

Mr. Davies: These are matters that we shall consider, but in the main discretionary trusts are used as vehicles for very wealthy people to avoid paying taxes.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER (ENGAGEMENTS)

Mr. David Steel: asked the Prime Minister if he will list his engagements for Thursday 18th December.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Edward Short): I have been asked to reply.
My right hon. Friend is paying an official visit to Northern Ireland today, Sir.

Mr. Steele: In the absence of the Prime Minister, may I ask the Lord President whether he will have time to pay a visit to Trafalgar Square to see whether the Department of the Environment was justified in refusing permission to Shelter and to a number of churchmen to set up a stable for a genuinely homeless family on Christmas Eve? Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that at Christmas time, when most of us have a fairly prosperous and enjoyable time, it would not be a bad thing to remind society that collectively we have so far failed to find room for everyone in our nation?

Mr. Short: I shall pass on to my right hon. Friend the point that the hon, Gentleman has raised to see whether anything can be done.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING POLICY

Mr. Michael Latham: asked the Prime Minister whether the public speech

by the Secretary of State for the Environment to a local government conference in Eastbourne on 20th November on the subject of housing policy represents the policy of Her Majesty's Government.

Mr. Edward Short: I have been asked to reply.
Yes, Sir.

Mr. Latham: What possessed the Secretary of State to choose a local government conference at which to commend the Community Land Act when the Government admit that it will substantially increase both public sector manpower and public sector administration costs?

Mr. Short: I think that it was the appropriate forum at which to do it.

Mr. Frank Allaun: As the Government are prepared to save the jobs of car workers, why are they not also prepared to save the jobs of building workers? Does my right hon. Friend agree that the TUC request for a massive housing and public works programme would meet far more pressing needs than those met by motor cars? Will the Government similarly protect home-helps, teachers and nurses who will be affected by the threatened cuts in public expenditure?

Mr. Short: My right hon. Friend will not have forgotten that the Government made a considerable amount of money available quite recently to improve the construction industry. I am sure he will pay tribute to the fact that both housing completions and starts are greatly up this year on last year.

Oral Answers to Questions — CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (SPEECH)

Mr. Tim Renton: asked the Prime Minister whether the public speech by the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the Institute of Export in London concerning economic matters on 3rd December represents Government policy.

Mr. Edward Short: I have been asked to reply.
Yes, Sir.

Mr. Renton: Why should Germany and the United States of America run the risk of increasing their own inflation, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer suggested in that speech, to bail Britain


out of its balance-of-payments difficulties—difficulties caused largely by the present Government's supine weakness? Why should other countries take that action when the Labour Government have started to introduce protectionist measures?

Mr. Short: There is general agreement that the United States and Germany are in a position to take such action. We are not yet in that position.

Mr. Madden: When do the Government expect an upturn in world trade to benefit the United Kingdom?

Mr. Michael Latham: Not next week.

Mr. Short: Certainly not next week. We hope that that will happen certainly towards the end of the coming year.

Mr. Whitelaw: Does the right hon Gentleman agree that on this and other questions it is now pointless his trying to explain what his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer said? Is it not a fact that the Labour Government will have to spend their Christmas Recess eating words uttered in recent speeches since the Government's industrial strategy of backing winners, announced at Chequers, has been totally reversed—to use a famous phrase, in weeks rather than months?

Mr. Short: If we are talking about eating words, the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Whitelaw) has a great deal of eating to do—unless he completely ignores and turns his back on the policy pursued by a Conservative Government of which he was a prominent member. The whole Opposition Front Bench have chosen completely to disown that Government and therefore the right hon. Gentleman must cat his own words.

Mr. Whitelaw: It is not for me to eat my words. It is for the Labour Government, of which the right hon. Gentleman is a prominent member, to eat words uttered by them even in the last few weeks.

Mr. Short: There is no conflict between the solution put to the House on Chrysler and the strategy agreed at Chequers—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] There is no conflict whatever. If some suggest that it is good industrial strategy to allow a major part of one of our major exporting

industries to collapse suddenly, I would reply that that is not our idea of strategy.

Mr. Norman Atkinson: asked the Prime Minister whether the public speech made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer at the Institute of Export on 3rd December with regard to import controls represents the policy of Her Majesty's Government.

Mr. Edward Short: I have been asked to reply.
I refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave earlier today to the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Renton), Sir.

Mr. Atkinson: But in view of the Chancellor's use yesterday of Treasury cosmetics, is it not now painfully clear that the Government have no intention of reflating the economy or of reducing the level of unemployment until such time as both the borrowing requirement and the rate of inflation are more than halved? Will my right hon. Friend explain whether this involves a rejection by the Government of Socialist planning concepts, or whether they are now in the grip of international credit opinion which is preventing them from pursuing policies that would allow us to reduce the level of unemployment? Will he clear up this point?

Mr. Short: Without going into the latter part of my hon. Friend's supplementary question, I must tell him that we have every intention of taking concrete steps to reduce the level of unemployment. A number of those steps were announced yesterday and a number have been announced on previous occasions. We shall go on searching for ways in which to reduce the figure. My hon. Friend is right to say that we have no intention of reflating the economy so long as that would have extremely harmful consequences.

Mr. Hugh Fraser: Following yesterday's measures, will the Government seriously consider issuing an order for nationalised industries to "Buy British"? Does he not agree that far too many nationalised industries are buying abroad when it is totally unnecessary? I quote one example—the CEGB's purchase of Swedish equipment which could be manufactured in this country—indeed, in the town of Stafford.

Mr. Short: A great many hon. Members would agree with the right hon. Gentleman that a great deal more could be done in that direction. I hope that the nationalised industries will take note of what he said.

Mr. Pattie: asked the Prime Minister whether the public speech by the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the Institute of Export concerning economic policy on 3rd December represents Government policy.

Mr. Edward Short: I have been asked to reply.
I refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave earlier today to the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Renton), Sir.

Mr. Pattie: Does the right hon. Gentleman think that it is reasonable for Britain to expect other countries artificially to increase their own internal rates of inflation to accommodate British exports? Does he agree that the speech by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the context of world trade represents an application by Britain to be considered for charitable status?

Mr. Short: No, not at all. It is reasonable for countries such as Germany and the United States to reflate to some extent, because they are in a position to do so. We are not yet in a position to do so, but when we are, we certainly shall do so.

Mr. Cryer: Does my right hon. Friend accept that much greater action is needed on imports than was indicated by yesterday's package? Does he also accept that import controls on textiles are not likely to have much effect in preventing the loss of 200 jobs a week, which is the present situation? If the Labour Government are trying to produce a planned internal economy, does he not believe that we must examine the import situation and plan ahead rather than to leave imports to the vagaries of the market?

Mr. Short: I appreciate my hon. Friend's problems, because I know his constituency. I believe that yesterday's package was useful, but certainly the Government will keep this matter under review.

Mr. Thorpe: May we take it from the right hon. Gentleman's reply that the Government reject the prophecy by the OECD that this country will have million unemployed by the end of next year?

Mr. Short: The OECD did not prophesy that, but we do not think the figure will rise as high as that.

Oral Answers to Questions — NEDC (NATIONAL CONSUMER COUNCIL)

Mr. Mike Thomas: asked the Prime Minister whether he will take steps to reconstitute the NEDC with the National Consumer Council as full members.

Mr. Edward Short: I have been asked to reply.
I have nothing to add to the reply which my right hon. Friend gave to my hon. Friend on 11th December, Sir.

Mr. Thomas: How does my right hon. Friend expect the Government to make credible their claim that in the Council they have created a body to represent the interests of the consumer in the higher councils of the land if, at the first whit] of grapeshot from the trade union movement and the CBI, they do not accord the Council full status within the NEDC?

Mr. Short: We are not yet willing to grant the NCC equal status with the CBI and TUC. The Council is a recently formed body, but in the matter of consultation it is evolving towards the objectives set out in the White Paper. It must be remembered that Mr. Michael Young is a valuable member of the NEDC and, although he attends that body as an individual, he also represents the NCC.

Mr. Sainsbury: Does the hon. Gentleman consider that the voice of the consumer might be better represented by ensuring that all major parties are represented in the NEDC's deliberations?

Mr. Short: That may be a point of view worth examining.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRUSSELS

Mr. Townsend: asked the Prime Minister when he next intends to visit Brussels.

Mr. Edward Short: I have been asked to reply.
My right hon. Friend has no immediate plans to do so, Sir.

Mr. Townsend: Will the right hon. Gentleman try to persuade the Prime Minister to visit the NATO headquarters in Brussels to learn first hand about the fear in the NATO headquarters that Britain's planned defence cuts will create a snowballing effect within the Atlantic Alliance, will lower the nuclear threshold, and will destroy NATO's policy of flexible response?

Mr. Short: The Government have so far announced no further plans in defence, but any proposals we have in this regard will be fully discussed with our NATO allies.

Mr. Atkinson: With regard to the OECD's prediction of a figure of 1¾ million unemployed in the United Kingdom by the end of next year, will my right hon. Friend accept that he is looked upon as one of the most honest members of the Government—?[Hon. Members: "Oh."] He is looked upon as one of the most honest members of the Government in the answers that he gives. Although he says that the Government do not accept that unemployment will rise to that figure, will he clarify the situation so that we may have no misgivings about the figure he has in mind? If we have rejected the idea of reflation, is it not right for us to assume that in the Government's opinion unemployment will rise above 1½ million?

Mr. Short: What I said was that we reject the solution of reflation so long as that would endanger our battle against inflation. I cannot today give the figure for which my right hon. Friend asks. If he tables a Question to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment, no doubt he will be given an answer. What I am saying is that in our view unemployment will not rise anywhere near the figure suggested.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Whitelaw: May I ask the Leader of the House to state the business for the week after the Christmas Adjournment?

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Edward Short): The business for the first week after the Christmas Adjournment will be as follows:
MONDAY 12th January—Debate on the Report of the Northern Ireland Constitutional Convention, House of Commons Paper No. 1, followed by
A motion on the Unsolicited Goods and Services (Northern Ireland) Order.
TUESDAY 13th, WEDNESDAY 14th and THURSDAY 15th January, which will be the 4th Supply Day—Debate on "Our Changing Democracy", devolution to Scotland and Wales, Command No. 6348.
FRIDAY 16th January—Private Members' Motions.
MONDAY 19th January—Conclusion of the debate on devolution.

Mr. Whitelaw: Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that last week my right hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. du Cann) asked why it was that the important debate on the Public Accounts Committee's Report had been postponed? Is it not an affront to this important Committee that not only has the debate scheduled for this week been postponed but it is not listed for the week immediately after the Adjournment?
May I ask on what motion the devolution debate will arise? It is inevitable, and right, that spokesmen from Scotland and Wales should speak from the Front Benches on certain days. Bearing that in mind, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman to confirm that, since this is a United Kingdom matter concerning the whole of the United Kingdom, there will be no question of having a separate day for debating Scotland or Wales?

Mr. Short: I will deal first with the last part of the right hon. Gentleman's question. The speakers from the Government Front Bench will on one day be from Wales and another day from Scotland. I propose that the debate for the first three days, in the first week, should be on a motion for the Adjournment of the House and that on the following Monday it should be on a "take note" motion. I hope that that will be for the convenience of the whole House. Since the debate will arise on a motion for the Adjournment on those three days, any


subject will be in order. The subject will be introduced by a Scottish and a Welsh Minister on two of the days.
I am sorry that it has not been possible to debate the Report of the Public Accounts Committee. We shall hold that debate at the earliest possible moment, I hope in the very near future.

Mr. Faulds: Can my right hon. Friend, during the recess, prevail upon the telephone authorities in this House to do something about improving the service, which, in my experience, is now running at a failure rate of about one in three?

Mr. Short: My hon. Friend has raised this with me previously and I have asked him to give me examples and evidence. If he will do so I will have any specific cases which he—or anyone else—raises looked into. As far as I am concerned I get virtually no failures when making telephone calls from this House.

Mr. Thorpe: Reverting to the question of the four-day debate on devolution, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider this: if we are to have a Scottish and Welsh spokesman on two respective days opening the debate, may we take it that there will also be representatives from the Scottish and Welsh Offices to reply to the debates on those days? Unless that is done, the debate could be very ragged. Further, many hon. Members may wish to concentrate on one day to the exclusion of others.

Mr. Short: This would take away time which could be used by Back-Bench speakers and I understand that you, Mr. Speaker, are under some pressure from hon. Members who wish to speak in the debate. We should try to give as much time as possible for non-Front-Bench speakers. I will look at the right hon. Gentleman's proposal.

Mr. Powell: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is a matter of satisfaction for hon. Members representing Ulster constituencies that the constitutional future of Northern Ireland is to be considered in this House in close association with the constitutional future of the rest of the United Kingdom? Is he further aware that we believe that the Government's decision reflects the rght framework for considering this matter?

Mr. Jay: How soon will my right hon. Friend find time to debate the Prayer in the name of a number of my hon. Friends and myself concerning the Import Duties (General) No. 5 Order, which raises the import duties on a number of foodstuffs and which was debated at considerable length last year and the year before?

Mr. Short: Speaking from memory, I think that this Prayer is still in time and will be in time until 21st January. I will provide time as soon as possible when we come back after the Adjournment.

Mr. du Cann: Reverting to the point raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Whitelaw) concerning the Public Accounts Committee debate, may I ask the Leader of the House to be more particular and to tell us exactly when he thinks we may be able to debate the Reports of this Committee? While I realise that the Government's programme is now in a most unhappy state of congestion—and there are many of us who think that this nation would be happier and wiser if we had much less legislation rather than more of it—does the right hon. Gentleman not think it of importance that priority should be given to a discussion of the single apparatus that this House has for the control of Government expenditure, to say nothing of the exposures of incompetence in such spending?

Mr. Short: I know the right hon. Gentleman's concern about this matter. He discussed it with me yesterday. It is always hazardous to forecast business in this House beyond one week. I can tell the House that I am hoping that this issue will be debated in the third week following our return. I hope that I can keep to that. I will not guarantee it.

Mr. Christopher Price: May I refer my right hon. Friend to the matter of the Select Committee on Cyprus? Is be aware that this Committee was doing a most important job and was about halfway through its business when it was disbanded? Assurances have been given that it would be set up again. May I have an assurance that it will be set up immediately after the Christmas Recess?

Mr. Short: Yes. I propose to put down a motion dealing with this Committee. I have discussed this with my hon. Friend


and members of the Committee. I intend to table a motion after the recess.

Mr. Peyton: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that such a motion will not necessarily secure unanimous support from all sides of the House? Is he further aware that I believe it undesirable that Select Committees and other Committees should proliferate? It is important that the Reports of our principal Committees, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. du Cann) has said, should receive proper attention. Will the right hon. Gentleman polish up the assurance he gave just now and say absolutely definitely that in the near future—after our return from the recess—the Reports of the Public Accounts Committee will receive the attention they have long earned?

Mr. Short: I cannot make it a fully copper-bottomed guarantee. I have said that I will try to arrange the debate in the third week following our return from the Adjournment. What the right hon. Gentleman has said about the Select Committee on Cyprus illustrates the difficulty that there is about this Committee. The House should have the opportunity to decide whether it wishes to have this Committee.

Mr. Bates: In the past my right hon. Friend has promised that we would have a debate on the motor car industry following the Government's reaction to the Report of the Public Expenditure Committee. Can he confirm that it is still the Government's intention that there will be a reaction to that Report, followed by a debate when we may discuss the motor car industry as a whole rather than just Chrysler?

Mr. Short: We have just had a debate on the motor car industry—I agree, on a rather restricted area of it. When the Government have submitted their reply to this Report, and if the Chairman of the Expenditure Committee agrees this subject, certainly there will be a debate on it.

Mrs. Bain: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether there is any possibility of an early debate on the future of the steel industry since threatened redundancies and closures are a matter of great concern to many of us?

Mr. Short: I cannot offer any prospect of such a debate in the near future. I was asked this question last week. I will certainly bear it in mind. I understand the concern of a number of Members on both sides of the House.

Mr. Greville Janner: Does my right hon. Friend recall that he assured the House that he hoped to introduce in this Session a Bill to implement the recommendations of the Law Commission on exclusion clauses in contracts for the provision of services? Does he still intend to do so, and, if so, when?

Mr. Short: I am afraid that the answer must be, "Not next week".

Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: May I revert to the three-day debate on devolution in the week when we return? Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that the debate on the motion for the Adjournment will allow those who wish to discuss future legislation, or to object to other people's proposals for future legislation, to remain in order?

Mr. Short: This is a matter for you, Mr. Speaker. I would, however, point out that there is no legislation on this subject before the House.

Mr. Grimond: Will the right hon. Gentleman ask his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy when he proposes to make a further statement on the progress of the National Oil Corporation and appointments to it? Will he represent to him that if the right hon. Gentleman is intending to appoint another full-time public servant to the Corporation, this is a matter which should be announced in the House so that we may discuss the implications of such a move?

Mr. Short: I shall certainly pass on to my right hon. Friend what the right hon. Member has said.

Mrs. Millie Miller: Is my right hon. Friend aware that since he was last asked about the fate of the Select Committee on Violence in Marriage I have received a satisfactory reply from the Department of Health and Social Security offering to start off some of the proposals made by the Select Committee? If he is unable to find time to debate the Select Committee's Report, will he be good enough


to set up a new Committee to deal with the problem of violence against children, which is a most urgent and important matter?

Mr. Short: I shall consider my hon. Friend's request. This is a very urgent and important matter and I shall keep it in mind. I am well aware of my hon. Friend's concern.

Mr. Gow: When does the right hon. Gentleman envisage that we shall have a debate on the Report of the Select Committee on a Wealth Tax? Are we to interpret his failure to announce a debate on this subject as meaning that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is not proposing to introduce legislation in the next Budget?

Mr. Short: The answers to the hon. Member's questions are, first, "Not next week" and, secondly, "No".

Mr. Raphael Tuck: In view of the alarming reports that British Rail is to reduce investment by 35 per cent. and cut down the amount of track in England from 11,000 miles to 3,800 miles, and bearing in mind the immense lobby last Tuesday, will my right hon. Friend promise a debate early in the new year on British Rail or transport generally?

Mr. Short: My hon. Friend will have seen the reply of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment yesterday. [HON. MEMBERS: "Codswallop!"] That is the one. Parliamentary language is deteriorating. I hope that my right hon. Friend's statement will reassure my hon. Friend and the public. If any decisions are taken, they will be taken by Ministers.

Dr. Hampson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science has so far shown a marked reductance to come before the House with oral statements on major policy changes? Is he aware that a Written Answer yesterday, which was deliberately put down so that it was lost in the Chrysler and unemployment debates, announced another major change in higher education policy? Will the right hon. Gentleman have a word with his right hon. Friend and also seek to implement the recommendations of the 1971 Select Committee on Procedure—recommendations that were supported

by the then Leader of the House—and institute a written ministerial answer system?

Mr. Short: Without accepting the premise on which the hon. Member's question is based, I shall consider what he said. This is a recurring problem. I shall reconsider it and write to the hon. Member.

Mr. Anderson: Does my right hon. Friend recall that we were told that there would be a statement on the future of the steel industry in Wales, probably before the end of this year? Many thousands of steelworkers in the Principality are involved, so will he give some indication when this long-awaited announcement will be made?

Mr. Short: It will not be made before Christmas. I am very sorry about that. I know of the concern in Wales. I have visited two of the major steelworks and talked to workers there. I shall try to ensure that a statement is made as soon as possible.

Mr. Cyril Smith: Reverting to the question of the four-day debate on devolution, will the right hon. Gentleman take into account that about five-sixths of the hon. Members of this House are from English constituencies, and will he understand that some of us are fed up with being pushed around by the Scots and take the view that it is time the Government spoke for England?

Mr. Short: Good luck to the Scots it they can do that. We are giving four days for this debate which is a very long time. When the draft Bill is published, there will be a further debate and when the firm Bill is published in the autumn there will be the normal parliamentary procedures. A great deal of time will be devoted to devolution next year.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many sectors of the textile industry are totally dissatisfied with the package announced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer yesterday? Will he be able to find time for an early debate after the recess, particularly on th plight of the shirt industry, which is in a terribly difficult position and is facing very unfair competition, so that we can air its problems in the House? Will the right hon. Gentleman also ensure that his


right hon. Friends use the mechanics of the EEC to guarantee a viable future for the textile industry in this country?

Mr. Short: What the hon. Gentleman said is very different from what many of his hon. Friends said in the debate yesterday.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I am speaking for myself.

Mr. Short: I know that the hon. Gentleman is speaking independently and that his view is not the view of his party. I know of his concern in this matter, but we had a full day's debate yesterday and I cannot offer any more time in the two or three weeks after Christmas.

Mr. Cryer: Will my right hon. Friend assure us that he will give urgent consideration to a debate after the recess on the annual report of the Factory Inspector? Is he aware that even Opposition hon. Members, who constantly prate on about strikes causing disruption in industry, would welcome such a debate, because days lost through industrial injury far outnumber those lost through strikes? Is my right hon. Friend aware that the report will need to be debated because it will contain urgent matters that the House should consider? Will he also give urgent consideration to introducing legislation to abolish the House of Lords, as we may well be having trouble with peers in the near future over the amending Bill to the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Amendment) Bill?

Mr. Short: On the first part of that Siamese twin of a question, my hon. Friend will know that the number of days lost through industrial disputes this year has been the lowest for seven years. There has been a quite dramatic drop. I think this would be a very suitable subject for a Supply Day or a private Member's debate. I shall bear it in mind, and when there is time for a general debate perhaps I may speak to my hon. Friend again. On his second point, this is a matter about which we must all think carefully and coolly for some time before we take any action.

Mr. Jessel: As each week's delay in reintroducing the Road Traffic (Seat Belts) Bill costs about 20 lives and 200 serious injuries on the roads, and as the Government

have already said they will introduce the Bill as soon as practicable in this Session, will the right hon. Gentleman treat this as a matter of urgency and see that the Bill is introduced some time in January?

Mr. Short: I have already talked to the hon. Member about this matter. Certainly, when it is possible to find time I shall reintroduce the Bill. The House started on the Second Reading and I think that many hon. Members would like the opportunity to take a decision on the Bill. As soon as there is time, I shall reintroduce it.

Mr. Madden: In case my right hon. Friend thinks that criticism of the measures announced for the textile industry by the Chancellor of the Exchequer yesterday comes exclusively from the Liberal and Conservative Benches, may I inform him that hon. Members on the Government side who represent textile constituencies are highly critical of the inadequacy of those measures? Will he ensure that his right hon. Friend makes an early statement on the negotiations announced yesterday, with particular reference to the dumping arrangements, which are a matter of continuing concern to the industry?

Mr. Short: I had no doubt that my hon. Friend would be dissatisfied with something the Government had done. I shall ensure that my right hon. Friend makes a statement on this matter as soon as possible.

NATIONAL ENTERPRISE BOARD (QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS)

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Edward Short): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement.
On 27th November the hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Mr. Stanley) raised a point of order about the extent to which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry should be accountable to the House for the affairs of the National Enterprise Board. I undertook to look into the issues that were raised in the subsequent exchanges.
The hon. Member said that he raised this point because, when he sought information in a Written Question on the


numbers and grades of staff, he was advised that this was a matter for the Board. He considered this to be a reduction of ministerial accountability to the House, and contrasted the reply he had received with that to a recent Question about the staffing of the Manpower Services Commission.
I have looked at the point raised by the hon. Member in some detail. I find that the written reply given by my right hon. Friend was fully in accordance with the long-standing practice of the House, followed by successive Administrations, with regard to Questions relating to the activities of nationalised industries and other public corporations.
Whilst Ministers are answerable to Parliament in respect of all matters for which they have a statutory responsibility, it is an accepted practice of the House that Ministers do not answer Questions relating to the day-to-day administration of such bodies. The information which the hon. Member sought regarding the staffing of the National Enterprise Board is, in the Government's view, clearly of this character, and I can see no reason why the established practice of the House should not apply in this case. It would be appropriate, therefore, for this information to be sought from the Chairman of the Board.
The comparison which the hon. Member drew with regard to ministerial answers regarding the staffing of the Manpower Services Commission is invalid, since in that case the consent of the Secretary of State is required by statute for the numbers, pay and conditions of service of the staff of that Commission. There is no comparable provision in the case of the National Enterprise Board.
The statutory provisions governing the nationalised industries and public corporations vary. The National Enterprise Board differs from most public corporations in that the Secretary of State has, under Section 7 of the Industry Act 1975, the power to give the Board not only general directions but also specific directions on the exercise of its functions. It is open to hon. Members to seek information by means of Questions in the House about the use of these powers by the Secretary of State.
Furthermore, the Board will be subject to guidelines, which themselves will be given force by a specific direction. These guidelines will be available to the House in draft form.
My right hon. Friend will also, within the well-understood limits imposed by the need to maintain necessary commercial confidentiality, be answerable to the House on aspects of the Board's day-to-day management that raise issues of urgent public importance or concern national statistics. He will also be answerable, as appropriate, for the activities of the Board in its capacity as a holding company, particularly in the case of wholly-owned or controlled companies, and he will also be answerable in the case of any directions to the Board in accordance with his powers to grant selective financial assistance under the Industry Act 1972.

Mr. Peyton: I think that the House will be grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for having made that statement and attempted to clear up the position. However, does he not agree that, on the whole, the National Enterprise Board is in no way directly comparable with a nationalised industry? As I understand it, the NEB is to carry out nationalising functions itself. It is very important that, in acordance with the assurances given by the then Secretary of State for Industry, Parliament should be able to secure answers from Ministers on the activities of this very new Board and its Chairman, whose functions in the industrial world are looked at somewhat askance—to put it as courteously as possible. Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that we shall want to return to this matter and engage in a very close review of the NEB and its activities, in order to assure ourselves that Ministers are indeed responsible and answerable for the activities of their creature?

Mr. Short: Perhaps the best course of action would be to see how it goes. If difficulties arise, we can look at the matter again.

Mr. Palmer: My right hon. Friend's statement is of very great interest. Since he has drawn a comparison with the nationalised industries, will he say whether the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries will be able to inquire into the affairs of the NEB?

Mr. Short: I am afraid that I cannot answer that question without looking into it. I was not asked about this. I shall look into it and let my hon. Friend know.

Mr. Stanley: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his statement and for examining the matters that I raised. I support the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) that the existing procedures governing parliamentary accountability in respect of the nationalised industries are not an adequate bench mark for assessing the parliamentary accountability of the NEB. The key feature of the NEB is that it can take companies into public ownership without any parliamentary reference whatever. Does the right hon. Gentleman also agree that the key to the future parliamentary accountability of the NEB will lie clearly in the guidelines that are to be issued by the Secretary of State, and that the Government have handicapped hon. Members on both sides of the House by setting the Board in motion without any guidelines and without giving us clear ground rules for parliamentary accountability?
Will the right hon. Gentleman acknowledge, finally, that this House has authorised the expenditure of £700 million through the NEB and that there is no certainty to be derived from his statement that any hon. Member will be able to feel sure of his ability to monitor the way in which that very substantial sum of public money is being spent, even though it may have a substantial bearing on his own constituents?

Mr. Short: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will study my statement carefully, especially the last paragraph, which goes a long way to meet him. As I said to the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton), let us see how we get on. If specific difficulties arise, I shall be very happy to consider the matter again.

Mr. Richard Wainwright: Liberal Members have consistently deplored interference in the management of well-established nationalised concerns, whether by the Government or by Parliament, but in relation to this new creature—the NEB—will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that its pattern of management is only now being established and that the guidelines have not been submitted to this House for debate? Is there not a case,

therefore, for an open season for a time in which Questions will be admitted, before the pattern has been settled?

Mr. Short: No, Sir. Obviously the House is concerned to see the guidelines, and I shall see to it that they are made available as soon as possible. Dealing with the hon. Gentleman's other point, perhaps I may repeat one sentence of my statement:
My right hon. Friend will also, within the well-understood limits imposed by the need to maintain necessary commercial confidentiality, he answerable to the House on aspects of the Board's day-to-day management that raise issues of urgent public importance. …".
That covers a great deal. However, I suggest that we see how it goes.

Mr. Mike Thomas: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is a difference between interference and information, and that the purpose of asking Questions is to elicit information? Many hon. Members, including those who, like me, have the privilege to serve on the Select Committee for Nationalised Industries, are unhappy about the quality and quantity of information that we can ascertain through Questions to Ministers, not least because that information is often presented in the form and manner and with the omissions and additions that the industries decide, with the Minister concerned often unable to add any gloss or factual content of his own. This applies to all the nationalised industries and not just to the NEB.

Mr. Short: I understand my hon. Friend's concern. However, if he studies my statement he will discover that a great deal more information will be obtainable about the NEB. I say that not only because of the passage from my statement that I have just repeated, but because of the very much wider powers of direction given to the Minister—both general and specific powers—on the exercise of his functions, and it is always open to any hon. Member to put down a Question about this.

Sir J. Eden: I wish to support my right hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton). Does the right hon. Gentleman not realise that in view of the widespread ramifications of the NEB and the very large sums of public money over which it presides, his statement could well influence Select Committees in the choice


of subjects for their own study? Would it not be desirable, in that case, that Select Committee Reports should be given much greater and more urgent attention in this House than is normal, to ensure that the exchange of information on these important matters is aired fully in this Chamber?

Mr. Short: Without attempting to comment on the last part of what the right hon. Gentleman said, I seem to remember that he had similar problems about the Post Office Corporation.

Mr. Alexander Fletcher: Has the right hon. Gentleman considered the matter of Questions to the Secretary of State for Scotland about the Scottish Development Agency? If so, do the same restrictions apply to them as in the case of the National Enterprise Board? If they do, will the right hon. Gentleman also agree to consider the matter again, as he has done in relation to the NEB?

Mr. Short: Without committing myself specifically, I imagine that the same considerations apply to the Scottish Development Agency, but if the hon. Gentleman will table a Question to me about it I shall see that he gets a detailed reply.

Mr. Gow: Since the Secretary of State for Industry is ultimately responsible for the National Enterprise Board, will the Leader of the House accept that Back-Bench Members will take unkindly his attempt to restrict the area of questioning to the Secretary of State? Secondly, will the right hon. Gentleman tell us what

instructions, if any, have been given to the Table Office about the tabling of Questions?

Mr. Short: No instructions have been given by the Government to the Table Office. This is a matter for the Table Office itself. I reject entirely the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question.

STATEMENTS BY MINISTERS

Mr. Speaker: I understand that the hon. Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) wishes to raise with me a matter which he contends is one of order.

Mr. Higgins: The House will recollect, Mr. Speaker, that yesterday the Chancellor of the Exchequer promised that today the Secretary of State for Trade would make a statement about help for exporters. There has been a nasty tendency lately for the Department of Trade to make important statements by way of Press statement or Written Answer rather than face questioning in the House. Have you received any request from the Secretary of State for Trade that he should make an announcement to the House on this matter?

Mr. Speaker: I find this extraordinary. There have been business questions today. The Leader of the House was subjected to questioning for quite a long time. The hon. Gentleman's point should have been raised during business questions. It is not a matter for me.

ADJOURNMENT (CHRISTMAS)

4.3 p.m.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Edward Short): I beg to move,
That this House at its rising tomorrow do adjourn till Monday 12th January.
I think that it would be for the convenience of the House if I did not make a speech at this point but contented myself with moving the motion.

4.4 p.m.

Mr. John Stonehouse: When, a few weeks ago, I raised with the Leader of the House the question of Early-Day Motion No. 7, on freedom of travel for Dr. Andrei Sakharov, he told me that I should have an opportunity to raise the subject on the motion for the Christmas Adjournment. That is why I refer to it now.
I also wish to refer to a number of other subjects, because I think that there are many foreign affairs questions that the House will want to consider and should be considering.
The House will be aware that the eminent scientist, Dr. Sakharov, who was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, having received an invitation was refused permission by the Soviet authorities to go to Oslo to collect it. Furthermore, he was not given any assurance that if he left the USSR he would be free to return to his own country.
This is a clear contravention of the Helsinki Declaration on the freedom of travel of individuals and ideas, and it is a matter of concern to this House that Ministers, in particular the Prime Minister, give great credit to themselves and to the other participants in the conference. We had a grandiloquent Press communiqué and statements about the success of the Helsinki conference, but when it comes to a crucial test of this kind, Dr. Sakharov is not allowed to leave the USSR.
Clearly, this House is not responsible for the ministerial actions of the Soviet authorities, but we are asking the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary why no protest has been made by the Government to the Soviet authorities on this clear breach of the Helsinki Declaration.
Are we to assume that the declaration was another example of cosmetics? We are having many examples of cosmetic statements by Ministers—they have been referred to today. Was the Helsinki Declaration another example to be forgotten when any crucial questions are raised?
It is significant that the motion has been signed by a large number of right hon. and hon. Members representing every party in the House, with the exception of the Social Democratic and Labour Party, the sole member of which, in this House, is very infrequently here. It is significant that representatives of every political party in the United Kingdom, with that one exception, have signed the motion drawing attention to this question.
It is important that the Foreign Secreary should, at an early date, take an opportunity to advise the House of what he has done to ensure that the Helsinki Declaration is being made effective—otherwise the public will assume that it is another example of humbug in international affairs, which we would bitterly regret and resent.
This is not the only area in which we have recently seen some deplorable failures in foreign affairs. We had a great deal of fuss and bother about Britain's having a seat at the Paris conference, but we read today that the Foreign Secretary was only there for a short time and was unable to return to Paris because of a Division in this House, although he was expected back by his ministerial colleagues. That is a gross discourtesy to our ministerial friends abroad. I am convinced that if the Opposition had been asked to give a pair to the Foreign Secretary to enable him to return to Paris for these important talks they would have been agreeable to the proposal.
Is the Foreign Secretary's attendance as one Member of Parliament in a Division in this House more important than his attendance at an international conference after he and the Prime Minister have made such a fuss about attending it?
I am also very concerned that we have had unsatisfactory statements about the state of our relations with Iceland. We have had brushings off. Various hon. Members representing fishing constituencies have raised many questions about the


state of our so-called "cod war" relations with Iceland. It is deplorable that the Government have allowed themselves to reach an incredible situation in which we are having almost a shooting war with Iceland.
Most people in this country recognise that the Icelanders have a legitimate point of view and, furthermore, we were told in a Committee Room upstairs by the Foreign Secretary himself that the Icelandic Government had proposed to the British Government that there could be an agreement on an annual catch of 65,000 tons of cod. So what are we arguing about? We are having a deplorable near-war with Iceland over a few thousand tons of cod.
The Icelanders were willing to allow an annual catch of 65,000 tons. They have reached an agreement with the West German Government. We could have reached an agreement with them also. It is an example of the arrogance and inflexibility of the Government that they have failed to reach an agreement with the Icelanders when the Icelanders had made this proposal to us.
I think that the Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs has conducted the negotiations with Iceland in a deplorable fashion. I do not condemn him as an individual. He went with a very bad brief. It is for the Cabinet to give the Minister of State a satisfactory brief, so that we can bring this ridiculous conflict to an end.
Early-Day Motion No. 20, dealing with South Africa's intervention in Angola, was put down by my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes), and it is supported by many hon. Members on the Government Benches. It draws attention to the fact that a serious war is going on in Angola. This area is threatening to become another Vietnam, with surrogate forces involved, yet we have not had any expression of view from the Foreign Secretary about the involvement of South Africa or, what is even more serious, the USSR in this struggle. What is happening there threatens to turn another part of that unhappy continent into a bloodbath and is delaying the evolution of Angola into a peaceful independent State. It is important that matters such as Angola are raised in the general context of a foreign affairs debate.
We have also had an interesting Early-Day Motion put down by the hon. Member for Havant and Waterloo (Mr. Lloyd) drawing attention to the remarkable series of expositions by the United States' representative at the United Nations. There have been refreshing expressions of view by Mr. Moynihan. He has said things which most people, including most Western diplomats, believe, but which most Western diplomats have not the courage to say openly, yet when he says them openly and is applauded by most people for doing so, our representative at the United Nations indicates his displeasure.
Mr. Moynihan drew attention to the situation in Uganda. I share his concern, as I know the country extremely well, having lived and worked there for many years. I believe that it is the responsibility of the United Nations and the representatives of various nation States there to speak frankly about the situation in that country, where tens of thousands of people have been brutally killed and where there are today many political prisoners who cannot communicate with the outside world.
I do not want to go any further than that, except to say that there are some hon. Members in this House who support Mr. Moynihan in his outspokenness, who welcome his attack on the cant and humbug in the United Nations, and who deplore the fact that the United Kingdom's representative at the United Nations has not only not associated himself with Mr. Moynihan's outspoken and frank comments but has found a way of condemning them. I should like an explanation from the Foreign Secretary of the situation.
I hope that when the House returns after the Christmas Recess, to which we shall presumably agree today, there will be an early debate on foreign affairs, so that those questions can be examined in more detail.

4.14 p.m.

Sir Frederic Bennett: My intervention can be even shorter than I expected it to be, because the right hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Stonehouse) has raised two of the four points that I would have raised. I agree with the tenor and spirit of all four


points raised by the right hon. Gentleman, including the two that I was not intending to raise.
I wish to raise one comparatively narrow but important aspect of an all-important question, namely, the continuing public unhappiness at the level of flagrant violence arising from the activities of the IRA and their akin gangs throughout the country. In two successive years, last year and the year before, when we debated the reintroduction of the death penalty for terrorism, I put down two amendments, one each year, which were supported by some of my hon. Friends, calling attention to the question which remains unanswered, namely, why should we not invoke the law of treason in appropriate cases? You, Mr. Speaker, in your absolute discretion, did not call those amendments, but the net result of their having been put on the Notice Paper is that I have received a large postbag from many members of the public, not belonging to any one political affiliation, who are equally curious about this matter.
At the moment, as I trace the law of treason—and I propose to make two small quotations from Halsbury—the offence of treason is the levying of war, and one part of the levying of war is
constructive, as when there is a rising for some general public purpose so as to effect an alteration of the law.
I think that to most laymen that is precisely what the IRA is attempting to achieve, namely, an alteration in the law of this country, to force Great Britain to abdicate her responsibility in Ulster and reduce the territorial integrity of this kingdom.
The second quotation is that
a small number of persons may be guilty of levying war against the Sovereign if those persons are preparing to use violent measures in carrying out their purpose as, for example, by the use of explosives with a treasonable intent.
I am not seeking to raise again debates that have already been held, but I think that we are entitled—I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will take it that I am sincere in raising the matter—to a statement either now or later—I am not pressing the right hon. Gentleman to make it today—on whether the reason for not invoking the law of treason is,

first, that we are reluctant to do so because if someone is convicted of treason the death penalty is mandatory, or, secondly, that the Law Officers, in their wisdom, have decided that what has happened during the past couple of years has on no occasion amounted to treason.
There are two distinct questions to be answered, and the House and the country are entitled to know the answers, because nothing is worse for respect for law and order than to leave laws on the statute book and ignore them. If the law of treason is outdated, let us amend or repeal it. Let us not leave it on the statute book and pretend that it exists when, in fact, we are unwilling to invoke it. I know from my own experience that I am speaking for hundreds of thousands of people who simply cannot understand why, if people are behaving in a way which common sense dictates is treason, to force the Crown to do something that it does not want to do, the law of treason is not invoked, along with the law of murder, and the matter left to the jury and judge to decide of which crime those concerned are guilty.
That question is being asked not only in this House but far outside it, and all that I am asking the Leader of the House today—and I repeat this, without apology—is to say whether the reason why we are not invoking the law of treason is that we are fearful that a jury might convict, in which case the death penalty would become mandatory, or that in the judgment of the Law Officers, none of the crimes committed by the IRA during the past couple of years amounts to treason. If the right hon. Gentleman cannot answer those questions today I hope that he will ensure that in due course I get fair answers to fair questions.

4.20 p.m.

Mr. Raphael Tuck: I wish to raise the subject of the disabled. Many of us are dissatisfied with the attitude of the Minister responsible for the Disabled towards the disabled driver. I am sorry that the Minister is not in his place. I informed him through his secretary that I hoped to speak on this subject this afternoon. Are hon. Members aware that there are 10,300 old motor invalid tricycles on the road and


9,800 new model 70s? They have been condemned by the Ombudsman, Which?, Drive and Lady Sharp. I will quote what Lady Sharp said about the invalid tricycle:
In a high wind it is obviously a murderous machine; it is more liable to skid and overturn than a four-wheeled car, and it must be very vulnerable to impact. This is the vehicle that we provide for people who cannot walk."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 19th February 1975; Vol. 356, c. 289.]
In a later letter which appeared in The Guardian of 21st August 1975, Lady Sharp said:
The story of the invalid tricycle has been one of cowardice, ineptitude and suppression of truth by both Government and Opposition:
Mr Graham Hill, the great racing driver, before he was killed was conducting a campaign to have these vehicles replaced by four-wheeled vehicles. In The Guardian of 28th January 1970, he made the following comment about invalid tricycles:
I was dead scared. There is a basic lack of safety about it. The normal car will be much safer and ten times easier to drive. It looks like a freak car and you feel like a freak inside it. I was very apprehensive the whole time. In fact I was very frightened.
And this from a great racing driver like Graham Hill.
Is it right that the Government should continue to turn a blind eye to these criticisms which have been levied against invalid tricycles? I acknowledge that I did receive a letter dated 4th December from my hon. Friend the Minister responsible for the Disabled in which he stated that a significant number of users would be unable to drive a four-wheeled car.
With great respect, my hon. Friend is incorrect. An article which appeared in The Sunday Times of 7th December confirmed that the Dutch Daf car is completely adapted for those with the severest form of disablement. The article reads as follows:
A bright yellow Daf car sailed smoothly down Park Lane in Culemborg, Holland, turned right, parked outside a block of flats and neatly demolished a claim by Britain's Department of Health that many disabled people are too handicapped to drive a car.
For the driver, 26–year-old Marjo Gerritsen, is paralysed from the chest down and the wasting muscles and joints of her hands can exert only the tiniest force—less than it takes to press a normal typewriter key.
That article completely removes all justification for retaining the tricycle except

for those people—a small number—who wish to continue with it.
I regret that a mobility allowance is not the answer. It provides no effective alternative for the tricycle driver who needs a vehicle to take him to work, to maintain independence in running a home and to provide a companionable life for his wife and children. I hope that my hon. Friend will never be disabled. I have been but, thank God, it is over. However, I know what a boon it is to a disabled driver to be able to get about with his wife beside him.
There is another anxiety. After 1st January next year help will no longer be extended to the less severely disabled people who need a vehicle for travelling to and from work. This will cause even more unemployment among the disabled The trouble is caused by a rigid interpretation of the phrase "virtually unable to work". Previously, the wording was as follows:
suffering from a slightly less severe disability which limits walking to the extent that personal transport is needed to go to work and come home again.
That definition allowed many disabled men and women to take and keep employment. If the new phrase is too rigidly interpreted those people, too, will be on the scrap heap.
We are grateful for the mobility allowance which brings in new categories of disabled persons, but the Minister seems to want to cut off disabled old-age pensioners from all life after 65 for men and 60 for women. Hon. Members probably do not realise that 8 per cent. of hon. Members of this House—52 in number—if disabled, would not qualify for the allowance because they are over age. Had they theoretically qualified for it in the past, it would have been stripped away from them on their 65th or 60th birthday. Are those people considered to be too old and too inactive to want to go anywhere outside their own sitting room? They wish to be part of the community, they want to go out and about and to enjoy life. For the disabled, that wish is to be ended when they reach 65 or 60, as the case may be.
With one hand we are encouraging local government, voluntary organisations and others to provide a fuller life for those who pass from a working life to active retirement. With that in view we support


the provision of travel concessions, and the like. With the other hand we are taking away mobility from the disabled just as they reach that age. As a disabled young man recently said:
It does not make sense. They need their heads examined.
Why are the Government throwing disabled people on the scrap heap when they become old? Hon. Members may remember George Orwell's book "Animal Farm" in which the old horse after its useful working life is put into a cart and taken away to be killed. Labour's slogan in 1964 was:
The party that cares about people.
What has happened?

4.27 p.m.

Mr. W. R. Rees-Davies: I wish to follow the speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Sir F. Bennett) in which he dealt with the law of treason. It is becoming vital to give the greatest possible support to the Army in Ulster and South Armagh. We are heading rapidly towards the day when we shall have to introduce a form of martial law and give real powers to the Army to enable it to carry into effect the military measures which are needed. The Army is inhibited from carrying out those measures now because of the mass media and the inability to conduct its affairs strictly along military lines.
The Law Commission is intent upon reforming and bringing up to date the law of treason, and I ask the Government to see that it does so as a matter of urgency. It is along the lines of the law of treason that terrorists should be indicted rather than for terrorist activities as such.
The Leader of the House this afternoon announced at last, following an Early-Day Motion in my name and the names of many hon. Members on both sides of the House, that he is to re-establish the parliamentary Select Committee for Cyprus. There are several reasons why that is essential. It is a precedent to establish a parliamentary Select Committee in an area where we have sovereign bases and an absolute duty under the treaty to do what we can to secure and maintain peace in Cyprus. Too easily have those treaty obligations been for

gotten. We are bound by the treaty today no less than when it was signed on our behalf by my right hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery). It is essential that we do our utmost to secure and obtain a continuance of peace, between Greece and Turkey. By doing that, we shall assist the re-establishment of the sovereign State in its proper condition in Cyprus.
There is no doubt that matters have dragged on far too long. The Select Committee is an all-party Committee of the House representing all shades of political opinion. If that Committee were reestablished it would come forward with a valuable consensus of parliamentary opinion, and not merely the opinion of Her Majesty's Government. It would be of the greatest value because its views could be considered in a wider context by the EEC countries and by the United States of America with the aim of establishing a joint policy to bring the necessary pressures to bear to secure a solution in Cyprus. I do not know whether the solution will be along the lines of bi-zonal territories, as seems likely, but it must be acceptable to the people of Cyprus and enable them to continue with their sovereignty.
It is equally essential that we should retain our sovereign bases on Cyprus because they give us some real power to maintain peace in the Middle East. The eyes and ears of the Middle East are fixed on Cyprus. From a base there, we can secure a just and lasting settlement in the area.
I leave that subject, because Her Majesty's Government have just announced that they propose to table the necessary motion for the re-establishment of the Select Committee, thus enabling it to report. I hope that it will receive the support of all hon. Members.
I turn to another matter which is of a totally different nature but which it is right to raise today. I am concerned about the future of our turkeys. This is a serious matter for everyone in the country. We must not forget that for the past 50 years we have produced our own turkeys and there has been virtually no complaint at any time of people being unduly sick of the turkey. It is the end result of other indulgences at Christmas that leads to sickness. I make a strong


plea that all hand-plucked turkeys be excluded from any EEC directive which is likely to have such a terrible effect upon the future of our traditional turkey. I take that view for two reasons.
First, to everyone's astonishment we find that the EEC has decided to introduce a food processing factory for poultry and turkeys, which is really suitable only for a factory working all year round. The processing of turkeys is seasonal and takes perhaps a fortnight. It is no exagger-ration to say that there are no more than two or three home producers able to afford the immense cost necessary to introduce a food processing factory. The minimum cost is £100,000.
The figures show that small turkey farmers, who at present slaughter and hand-pluck turkeys in pole barns in the few weeks before Christmas and then sell them to the wholesale or retail markets, will be put out of business. There are upwards of 4,000 of these farmers and they produce between 2 million and 2·5 million traditional farm-fresh birds.
I have received a letter from a farmer in my constituency. He and his forebears have produced turkeys for the past 50 years. At the end of November, he wrote to me saying:
This is now very urgent as breeder birds required to produce poults for 1977 will be hatched in April next, 1976 and will cost at least £10 each by 1977. This will be very serious if we are unable to afford the necessary alterations required by the EEC regulations, and no one seems to know exactly what these are. We could easily have to spend £100,000 to do the same job that we have been doing for the past 50 years. We have never had one complaint from our dressed bird section. If the small farmers have to give up there will be a few thousand more workers out of a job, wanting redundancy pay. I could not find a job for the 20 people employed the year round and for some 30 others who are part-time.
He went on to say that regrettably there seemed to be much rejoicing in certain sections of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and more especially among the veterinary surgeons who seemed unable to recognise that these proposals were an unwarranted interference by officialdom with an area in which there was no complaint on health grounds. It is not suggested that we suffer because there have been complaints that our turkeys are not properly produced or that they have caused extensive illness.
I have considered some of the measures which are thought necessary. Among the requirements is:
An adequately equipped, lockable room for the exclusive use of the veterinary surgeon.
There must be tiled workrooms with adequate equipment. For example,
taps must not be hand-operable: these facilities must have hot and cold running water (or mixed at a suitable temperature)".
There must be
Changing rooms, wash basins, showers and flush lavatories: the latter shall not open directly on to work rooms".
There is a great deal of other paraphernalia mentioned which might be necessary for anyone working in, for example, a chemist's dispensary or a food-processing factory operating the whole year round.
The directive entails vast expenditure which will be possible for only two or three companies.
How did the regulations manage to reach their present position? I believe that two or three of the big multi-corporations, in their own interests, have pressed for an ever increasing flood of regulations which—once they have provided the necessary capital—are much to the benefit of the major concerns. The consequence for this country is that about 4,000 farmers who manage to produce and sell turkeys to the wholesale market will have to go out of business. The small producer who sells at the farm gate will remain.
In the example I quoted, the turnover of the principal turkey farmer in Thanet is more than £100,000 a year. He meets an immense need, and without complaint.
I urge Her Majesty's Government to reconsider the position. I know that there is considerable sympathy from the present Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food who feels strongly about the matter. We have a champion who will at least do his best to ensure that we can succeed. I hope that he has the support of all quarters of the House on this matter.
It is merely through officialdom run riot that we are facing this totally needless intrusion into the production of hand-plucked turkeys. Turkeys are the traditional joy and pleasure at this time of year. I hope that an early decision will be made so that we ensure that these farmers are not put out of business in 1977.

4.40 p.m.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: The hon. and learned Member for Thanet, West (Mr. Rees-Davies), having raised a seasonal point, has also raised a matter which is always of interest to the public and, indeed, this House—namely, the formation of regulations which are imposed arbitrarily or otherwise on a long-suffering public. It is the duty of Parliament—it is particularly appropriate just before an Adjournment—to ensure that matters are brought to the attention of Ministers.
I wish to refer to how we are managing or not managing to look at EEC regulations in this House. I do not know whether the regulations to which the hon. and learned Gentleman referred emanated from domestic legislation or from the EEC.

Mr. Rees-Davies: They are EEC regulations which have had the sanction of Parliament and, therefore, would have to be reintroduced and re-amended if pressure were exerted by the Government.

Mr. Spearing: I am obliged to the hon. and learned Gentleman. That makes the point which I wish to make of even greater significance. I presume that the turkey regulations were before this House in some way previously but perhaps did not have the scrutiny they might have deserved.
How we process, scrutinise and let Ministers know what we think about EEC legislation which is incumbent upon the United Kingdom is a controversial matter. There was a proposal from the Select Committee on Procedure not long ago that we should remove such discussions from the Floor of the House and send them upstairs to a Committee. That proposal was generally welcomed—at least in principle.
On 3rd November we had a half-day debate in this House on how that proposal should be put into effect. There was a general welcome for the opportunity of Committee consideration of these documents other than that already carried out by the Scrutiny Committee. In Committee one can digest and clarify matters in a less formal way than on the Floor of the House. One can exhaust a subject, quite properly, with Ministers and hon. Members speaking on a number of occasions. There is also the opportunity

to adjourn for a day or two so that matters can be clarified, instructions taken, and the Committee can come back and reach a conclusion. Such proceedings afford the opportunity of drawing to the attention of the House difficult matters which are apprehended in the course of those proceedings, because the Committee is able, by an amending or other motion, to report to the House.
The second requisite of such Committee proceedings is sufficient time. Without opening the door to obstruction, there should be sufficient time within the Committee's proceedings for matters to be properly aired and for the points made by hon. Members to be answered by Ministers.
Unfortunately, in the debate on 3rd November my right hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council, whom I am glad to see here, did not favour giving freedom to the Committees to be masters of their own motions or time. He thought that the only motion suitable for Committees on EEC legislation was
That the Committee have considered
the documents. Indeed, that is what we do with our own domestic statutory instruments. Initially, at least, my right hon. Friend was reluctant to let the Committees sit beyond the times provided in Standing Order No. 73A for Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments. As a result of the debate in which nearly every speaker was unhappy about my right hon. Friend's proposal, the Minister of State, Privy Council Office, said:
we undertake, if the House will pass it
—that is, pass the motion before the Committee—
to lay a further amendment in the near future to give effect to the general wish of those who have spoken in the debate."—[Official Report, 3rd November 1975; Vol. 899, c. 102.]
The general wish of those who tool part in the debate was that the Committee should have more and adequate time. In that quotation the Minister was acceding not to the request for changing the motion—that was not agreed—but to the request for additional time.
Unfortunately, that motion was not laid shortly after 3rd November. In fact it has not been laid. I do not necessarily make any complaint about that in principle, because there are difficulties, to which I will come later.
The Lord President, when he tabled the first document to go upstairs to the Committee, amended the Standing Order so that it was possible to have a debate of two and a half hours instead of the usual one and a half hours. On the Order Paper for 26th November there was a motion that Commission Document No. S/1430/75 be allowed to be debated for two and a half hours. However, it did not specify that that document related to Cyprus sherry. Therefore, the House did not know what the subject was. I think that the Lord President may be considering adding the subject to such a motion in future. At least the Committee had two and a half hours to debate that document, so the spirit of the undertaking was discharged.
Another motion which was put before the House only last week on Commission Document No. R/2357/75 relating to sugar had no such additional instruction to the Committee included in it. The result was that yesterday the Second Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c. had only one and a half hours to discuss a very complex and important matter concerning future supplies of sugar. Under Standing Orders the Committee could discuss that matter for only one and a half hours. Therefore, the slip or failure of the Lord President, or the office of the business managers, to provide that cover which had been acceded to on 3rd November made things very difficult.
I wish to draw the attention of the House to the proceedings in that Committee. First, there were complaints by hon. Members. The hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby), who was able to speak for only eight minutes, referred
to the grave lack of time we have to consider this regulation, which deals with a complex and difficult matter that back benchers should have adequate time to discuss.
The Minister, in summing up, said:
I ask the indulgence of hon. Members it I try to deal with questions very quickly in order to indicate some of the possible replies to the many questions hon. Members have posed this morning."—[Official Report, Second Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments. &amp;c, 17th December 1975; c. 27–31.]
I should have thought that on any count it is not satisfactory for any Minister of the Crown, either in Committee or in the House itself, to
indicate some of the possible replies".

There were many points which the Minister did not answer.
The documents concerned minimum sugar stocks to be held in future by manufacturers throughout the EEC. The proposal was for a minimum of 10 per cent. sugar stocks. That sounds a fairly simple matter, but it is extremely complicated. Everything about sugar is exceedingly complicated. The Minister said that the cost might be up to £18 per ton per year, which could mean £18 million to £30 million a year in addition to the retail cost of sugar to cover the extra cost of storage. We could not tell exactly what the amount would be, because we did not know how much was in the pipeline or in stores. The important point which the Minister did not clarify was whether the regulation applied only to sugar from sugar beet or to sugar from cane.
The largest sugar refinery in the country is situated in my constituency. Therefore, I asked for some information from Messrs. Tate & Lyle Ltd. Unfortunately, it reached me half-way through the discussion in Committee. I had no time either to speak again or to quote from the letter, despite that company's undoubted knowledge in this area. The company, in its letter to me, made the extraordinary statement that, as the document referred only to beet sugar, it was reserving its position. Yet it was clear from the Committee's proceedings that we were not sure whether it applied to beet, to cane, or to both.
I give that as an example of the difficulties facing the Committee. These were two of the major points which arose. We had no proper reply from the Minister, who had to sit down by twelve o'clock midday. Had there been another hour for discussion, we could have dealt with these matters in a more satisfactory way. This difficulty arose out of the non-implementation of a specific undertaking given by the Minister of State, Privy Council Office, to this House, and, indirectly, from a failure, at least, to see that the spirit of the undertaking was met by an interim order when the motion came before the House.
I hope that my right hon. Friend will look at the reasons for this lapse and see that it does not happen again in the interim period. My main request to him is to have another look at the Order Paper


today, because at about eight o'clock tomorrow morning the document will come up for approval. In theory, those hon. Members who have doubts about it should roll up and vote against it, but we do not know what the document is proposing. Indeed, another document is on its way.
It is an extremely difficult situation because the matter was not cleared up in Committee. The Leader of the House should think twice about it and not proceed with the motion tomorrow morning. That would allow us a chance to clarify the position, at least by correspondence. I hope this will be possible, because I understand, informally, that the next meeting of the Council of Ministers in Brussels, when it will be discussed, will not be until the end of January. We would then be able to take the matter in the House after the recess. That would give Members of the Committee time to find out what it is all about, or at least to clarify the document with the Minister of Agriculture.
It is important to put on the record that all the things that some of us said during the debate on 3rd November have come to pass. We are totally dissatisfied with the present procedures for dealing with EEC matters. If matters such as this had been dealt with better, the point about turkeys made by the hon. and learned Member for Thanet, West might not have had to be made. There should be a permanent amendment to Standing Orders to make it possible for these Orders to be properly considered. I know there are difficulties on that score, but mostly it is because the EEC is not giving us time to look properly at the documents. We must insist that Members have time to do that before the documents are discussed by the Council of Ministers. If time is not given, we cannot give instructions to Ministers and our ability to influence the regulations is diminished.
I hope that my right hon. Friend will give me some assurance about the motion on the Order Paper. Perhaps he will indicate that he will accept some future suggestions that will allow plenty of time in Committee to deal with the complex situation which usually arises in these complicated regulations.

4.54 p.m.

Mr. John Biggs-Davison: The right hon. Gentleman the

Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Stone-house) alluded to the catastrophe in Angola. Angola is a vast, rich territory in which I have travelled widely over the past 15 years, but where I have no interest other than that which we all share in the peace and prosperity of that country.
The retreat from the Empire to Europe seems to have made us very insular islanders. But it seems extraordinary that the House should be adjourning tomorrow without any statement or sign from the Government that they are treating seriously the bloody conflict in Angola where there are substantial British and allied interests. The right hon. Gentleman made a comparison with Vietnam, but we might also think of Spain in 1936 when it was feared that the Axis powers, by gaining lodgment in the Iberian Peninsula, would be able to close the Straits. That was averted by the astute nationalism of General Franco.
In Angola we have no assurance that the Soviet patronage of the MPLA will not endanger South Atlantic bases and facilities, the Western European tanker route and the line of communication round the Cape. I understand that the Soviet Union has already put into Angola T54 tanks, MIG 21 aircraft, 122mm rockets and SAM 7 missiles. There is a ferry service between Odessa and Luanda, of Antonov 22 transport aircraft, and ships bearing arms and supplies to the MPLA. I understand that Cuban mercenaries are engaged. That is the situation on one side. On the other side, that of the FNLA and UNITA, Pretoria's decision to extend the period of national service suggests that military intervention by South Africa has already gone further than the protection of the Cunene project. Troops from Zaire are active in the north of Angola, and these have evoked incursions of forces from Congo-Brazzaville to support the MPLA against the FLEC, a separatist movement in the Cabinda enclave where Standard Oil has been exploiting offshore petrolem. Despite the misgivings in Congress in the United States and what one might call senatorial defeatism, Dr. Kissinger has shown himself unwilling to allow the United States to cede predominance in Angola to the Soviet Union.
It is not a policy just to deplore the action of South Africa or the USSR. It


is not enough for the Prime Minister to say that the United Kingdom wishes to do nothing, which is what he said. It is quite insufficient for the Foreign Secretary to say that we should leave it to the Council of the Organisation of African Unity. The treaty area of the Atlantic Alliance stops at the Tropic of Cancer, but its scope and interest go beyond. It is quite extraordinary that the Government should have nothing to say of any importance on this matter. They should be active with our allies in NATO trying to work out a policy in the interests of the West.
In these dangerous days we are told that the Government are under pressure to make still further defence cuts. The Lord President of the Council told us that no new defence cuts had been decided so far, but I ask him at least this—that before we assent to this motion we should be told that there will be no announcement of further defence cuts and no decision made while we are in recess and are thus deprived of any chance of expressing our detestation of such a ruinous policy.

4.58 p.m.

Mr. Peter Mills: My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Thanet, West (Mr. Rees-Davies) raised an interesting point about turkeys. The Government should make a statement on this matter in view of the serious repercussions it will have on the poultry industry. It affects not only turkeys but chickens and ducks too.
The correct name for the type of bird my hon. and learned Friend had in mind is a "New York-dressed bird", and it is important to understand what that means. In the months to come New York-dressed birds will become an important issue in this House. Consumers in this country will have to fight hard to obtain the sort of bird they want. That does not mean that everyone is opposed to hygiene and cleanliness and the correct preparation of birds frozen before sale. However, we must allow the consumer to have a choice between an oven-ready bird which is frozen and a New York-dressed bird.

Mr. Rees-Davies: Can my hon. Friend enlighten the House why it is called a New York-dressed bird?

Mr. Mills: I was afraid that my hon. and learned Friend would ask that question

because, unhappily, I do not know the answer. That is the term that has always been used, but I do not think that even the Ministry of Agriculture knows why. Perhaps the Leader of the House can bring his expert knowledge to bear on the matter when he winds up the debate. We should have some announcement from the Government that they are determined to ensure that consumers have a choice in the matter.
In view of the many other pressing issues which have arisen, the problem of minibuses seems to have been squeezed out, and it is for this reason that I oppose, though not very strongly, the Adjournment of the House. Minibuses are facing many problems, particularly in the rural areas. I realise that it would be difficult for the Government to do anything before the recess, but never the less I should be grateful if a statement were made.
The main problem has arisen over the interpretation of the Road Traffic Act 1960. I believe that Section 118 is the provision in question. The difficulties are created because of the interpretation of that section by the courts. The use of minibuses will also be affected by EEC regulations which I believe come into force on 1st January 1976, so that time is extremely short in this matter.
The interpretation of the 1960 Act has caused problems for schools, pensioners, handicapped children and youth clubs which have minibuses bought out of donations from the public. All sorts of methods have been devised to raise the money to provide these vehicles. Yet the organisations are being denied the use of their buses because of the Act. Something must be done as quickly as possible, and I believe that it may be necessary to amend the law.
It would be ridiculous to suggest that we should put aside all thoughts of safety. Of course, we must accept safety measures to provide properly maintained vehicles and properly trained drivers. But the law needs clarification.
I received a letter from the chairman of the governors of one of the special schools in Devon. It has a minibus. The letter says:
As you may know, restrictions have recently been imposed on the use of mini-buses by schools, as a result of which a good deal of hardship has been caused.


She goes on:
It is not practicable to convert mini-buses into Public Service Vehicles. Difficulties arise over the licensing of drivers, the keeping of log books and drivers' rest periods, but mainly over the fact that the mini-buses can seldom be adapted to the required standard of comfort to be given a Public Service Vehicle Licence.
She says that because of these restrictions
The County Council has … no alternative but to prohibit the use of mini-buses for school trips or journeys of any kind unless the entire expense is borne by the Council".
This is a sad state of affairs. The problem is more apparent in the rural areas. My right hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton), who I believe will reply to the debate for the Opposition, comes from the West Country and knows the value of these minibuses and how they can solve problems in the rural areas. Petrol is very expensive, and to run a minibus helps to get over that. In transporting young people and the disabled into the towns they make life a lot easier than would otherwise be the case.
I will not press the Leader of the House too strongly about this matter, but I hope that he will say something of encouragement to minibus users, and I hope that the Department of the Environment will bear in mind what I have said.

5.7 p.m.

Mr. Jasper More: I wish to reiterate and support very strongly the views expressed about Angola by my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Mr. Biggs-Davison). It seems completely wrong that the House should adjourn with no clear statement from the Government about their attitude on this important topic.
A related problem is that the Government have not made their promised statement on defence policy. The world situation is extremely dangerous, and the danger is growing every day. In those circumstances it would be wrong to adjourn without hearing the Government's statement. In answer to a question the Prime Minister said that any defence economies would be made in the tail rather than the teeth. If that is the gist of the defence statement the prospects for the country are poor.
The situation in Angola is of great importance. We have all been watching

developments in the United States, where the House of Representatives is obviously reluctant to see America committed to a second Vietnam. In Vietnam, unlike the case of Korea 25 years ago, the Americans did not have the support of this country. Twenty years ago the Americans, of their own volition, resolved a dangerous crisis in Lebanon. We are now faced with two comparable situations. Again, there are dangerous developments in Lebanon, and things have flared up in Angola.
It is unrealistic to expect the Americans to go on dealing with these world crises when we are not prepared to give them even moral, let alone physical, support. The Government should come clean on this and say whether we are allies of the American people, and see what we can do to get the co-operation of the other European countries in a realistic Western policy towards these critical problems.
The Government should also make a clear statement about what we intend in terms of our obligations to NATO, particularly when we now face four threats from the Soviet Union—in nuclear, conventional, military, naval and air matters. We cannot sustain a nuclear effort on the same scale as the Americans can, but if we want American support we can surely at least make some financial contribution to the enormous burden they bear. In military affairs, the Government should say that we will honour our obligations to NATO, if necessary increasing our military presence on the Continent of Europe.
As for the Navy, some weeks ago there was a critical assessment from the Chief of the Naval Staff about the position we now face, particularly in submarine strength and warfare. Twice in the twentieth century we have had to face a submarine enemy, but it is wise to remember that in neither war was this so at the outbreak. The threat arose only during the war, when submarine building was quickly and effectively increased by our enemies. Although there is no war at the moment, the Soviet Union has an enormous submarine force.
Our interests in this respect are different from those of other European countries. We are totally vulnerable on the sea, in respect of our seaborne imports. It is essential to have a naval


defence policy which, if necessary, is independent of Europe and linked to America.
The Leader of the House may have seen in the Press today an assessment by the Chief of the Air Staff of our situation in the air. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will agree that nothing could be more alarming for this country. Russia is spending an enormous military budget every year, and the Chief of the Air Staff says that it is now building 1,700 military aircraft each year, of which 700 are of the most advanced type of high-performance combat aircraft in the world.
The Russians have supersonic aircraft carrying deadly stand-off weapons, with which 10 aircraft could wreak more damage and destruction than 1,000 aircraft could achieve only recently. What do we have to defend our own shores? The RAF now has only 75 home-based fighters, compared with about 800 in 1957. Altogether, it now has about 400 combat aircraft—that is, aircraft intended for attack, defence and reconnaissance. That is fewer than Poland or Czechoslovakia. Russia has a combat air force of 5,350. The Leader of the House will agree that those are fairly chilling figures and that the country needs to be told something at an early stage if we are to have any confidence in our future independence.
Summing up the situation, the Chief of the Air Staff said:
Russia increased her military expenditure by between 3 per cent. and 5 per cent. in each of the last 10 years, and last year alone spent over 50 per cent. more in real terms than the United States. Russia is now spending more on research and development than the whole of the rest of the world.
We know from the debates of the last two days that we are facing mass've unemployment in one of our leading industries—motor manufacture. Is this not the moment for the Government seriously to consider a massive redeployment of those unemployed people in the direction of our defence industries? Obviously, this is not a question on which we can expect a detailed statement before the recess, but we should at least have, in broad terms, a declaration by the Government that they intend this country to be adequately

defended in the face of these enormous threats.

5.16 p.m.

Mr. Michael Latham: I do not want to follow the valuable contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr. More). I want to raise a quite separate matter as a reason for the House not adjourning tomorrow, namely, the urgent need for a full-scale debate on the serious increase in Civil Service manpower. This is a matter on which I have been in correspondence with the Lord President, who wrote me a courteous letter a couple of days ago. When discussing whether time could be provided, he was kind enough to say that this was a matter of concern, but he added that he could not offer Government time in the;m-mediate future.
The facts are quite simple and are not in dispute. On 1st March 1974, when the Government took office, there were 697,059 civil servants in post. On 1st July 1975, there were 707,932—that is, an increase of 11,000 in the first 16 months of the Government's tenure of office. But on 1st October 1975, there were 719,145—or a further increase of 11,000 in three months, making 22,000 in the 19 months for which the latest figures are available.
Some of these increases are a matter of policy, but some of the explanations that I have received from Ministers whom I have been pursuing in Written Questions have been most unsatisfactory. For example, in an answer to me on 3rd December, the Minister of State, Civil Service Department, explaining why the staff of the Department of Employment had increased by 1,805 between 1st July and 1st October this year, said that this extraordinary increase was
mainly to deal with the higher levels of unemployment."—[Official Report, 3rd December 1975; Vol. 901, c. 595.]
I am sure that the House does not want to deal with our unemployment problem by substantial increases in public sector manpower.
I said that the main responsibility in this respect was policy. If the Civil Service expands, it is not the fault of individual civil servants. The fault lies solely with Ministers who bring forward new policies that require increases in the Civil Service to administer them.
I want to give two specific examples, one of which is particularly germane to the Lord President, since it deals directly with his responsibilities. I refer to the Constitution Unit of the Cabinet Office, which was set up on the formation of the Labour Government to advise the right hon. Gentleman on devolution policy. From questioning Ministers I have established that the unit employs 32 staff, at an annual cost to the taxpayer of £264,000. Of those 32, 22 were transferred from other Ministries, five were transferred from within the Cabinet Office and five were directly recruited. All but one of the 27 who had been transferred or seconded from other Departments have been or are being replaced in their previous positions. There is a net addition to the Civil Service of 26 people solely as a result of the Government's decision to set up a devolution unit in the Cabinet Office. That is a classic example of the way in which the Civil Service expands as a result of ministerial decisions.
The other case is also partly the right hon. Gentleman's responsibility. The Prime Minister explained to me that the reason for the increase in staff of the Cabinet Office from 599 on 1st March 1974 to 658 on 1st July 1975 was mainly due to the devolution unit, which I have mentioned, but—and I quote from a Written Answer that the Prime Minister gave me on 10th November:
A contributing factor was some strengthening of the Central Statistical Office to improve the quality and speed of preparation of Government statistics."—[Official Report, 10th November 1975; Vol. 899, c. 383.]
I subsequently asked the Prime Minister what the improvements were that necessitated the increase in staff. The Prime Minister replied as follows:
… the reinforcement of computing facilities and programming support to speed up the provision of statistics in the general area of the national accounts and to improve the computing services for economic analysis and forecasting, and (b) the development of social statistics with particular regard to improving estimates and characteristics of income distribution."—[Official Report, 26th November 1975; Vol. 901, c. 155.]
That was the picture on 1st July.
I am sorry to say that there has been a further increase of 23 in the staff of the Cabinet Office between 1st July this year and 1st October. The Prime Minister said that this was further to increase the

particular improvements in the statistical service, which I mentioned a moment ago.
I have no doubt that improvements in statistical returns of this kind are interesting and perhaps useful. However, I do not believe that the House will be satisfied that they are essential at this time of severe economic stringency and at a time when, above all, it is desirable to restrain public sector manpower, or that simply to improve statistical returns is a reason for substantial increases in the staff of the Cabinet Office.
The only reply of a specific nature that I have received so far from the Minister about what action the Government propose to take on this matter was on 28th November when I asked the Minister of State for the Civil Service Department
whether he intends to impose cash limits, or numerical ceilings, upon Civil Service manpower and its related expenditure during the current financial year.
The Minister replied:
No. But strict control will continue to be exercised to restrict manpower and expenditure to the minimum necessary to meet the demands placed on the Civil Service by Parliament."—[Official Report, 28th November 1975; Vol. 901 c. 352.]
If the Minister of State for the Civil Service Department believes that an increase of 11,000 in three months is strict control of public sector manpower, the taxpayer has a sad outlook indeed. I know that the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House considers this to be an important matter because he had the courtesy to say so in his letter to me. I hope that he will be able to provide some time for the Government to make a full statement on this matter before the House rises for the Christmas Recess.

5.22 p.m.

Mr. Peter Blaker: I should like to support what my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr. More) has said about defence. The striking figures which he gave the House about combat aircraft should be more widely known across the country. I also support what he and my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Mr. Biggs-Davison) said about the importance of Angola. There is no doubt that there is a massive Russian and Cuban build-up and the West should be showing much more vigour in its attitude towards that build-up.
Before we rose for the Christmas Recess I had hoped that the Foreign Secretary would make a statement about the Government's attitude, which would show solidarity with our European allies and more determination to support the United States in resisting what is clearly an effort by the Soviet Union to take over Angola—a key part of Africa—which is potentially very rich in minerals and in other ways.
The main topic that I want to raise is that of the glasshouse sector of the horticulture industry. Before the House rises for the recess the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food should make a statement to the House indicating what policy, if any, the Government have towards that sector of the horticulture industry. We had a platitudinous statement last week from the Under-Secretary saying that the Government wish that sector to continue. It is desirable, of course, that the Government should say that but we should like to hear what the Government propose actually to do to ensure that the glasshouse sector continues.
Ever since the sudden increase in oil prices late in 1973 the glasshouse sector has faced a worrying time. The House will understand that this is because it is almost unique in the high percentage of its costs which are attributable to fuel oil. It is true that for one year-1974the Government provided a subsidy and the industry was grateful for it. However, the EEC, with which we discuss these matters, has authorised and indeed recommended its member countries to subsidise the fuel oil costs of the glasshouse sector for a longer period. According to my information Holland, Belgium and West Germany are now giving subsidies to their glasshouse growers to the full extent that has been agreed among the member countries of the Community.
It is true that, contrary to what many of them feared, most of our efficient growers have been able to get through the last year and survive. They have done so by skill, economy and modernisation of their methods, but largely by luck, because last winter and spring were milder than normal. The same cannot be said of this winter so far. This is a topical question because at this time of year the growers are planning, if they

have not already planned, their programmes for the coming season.
Although the efficient growers have survived, it is also true that imports of tomatoes from Holland, which is our main competitor, increased during the summer by 51 per cent. Let us hope that that is not an indication of future trends. However, even the efficient growers do not have profits of a sufficient size put aside to carry them confidently through another year in the new circumstances which they now face. They are extremely anxious about the future. When I refer to the new circumstances I mean the increase in the cost of fuel oil which was announced a few weeks ago. This means that fuel oil will cost the growers between 20 per cent. and 30 per cent. more than it did before the recent announcement. Depending on the type of oil the grower uses, that means between £1,700 and £3,250 extra per acre of glass simply for the cost of fuel. On top of the extra cost of fuel the grower is faced with the fact that next month he has to pay £6 a week more to his employees, and even more than an extra £6 a week to his female employees, if he has any, because of the introduction of equal pay.
What the growers want is the opportunity to compete on a fair basis with their main competitors on the Continent of Europe. According to the information given to me, the present position is that the British grower who is using fuel oil has to pay about £4,000 per acre per year more than his Dutch competitor. That is a situation with which even the most efficient growers in Britain will find it difficult to cope.
I am not saying that a new subsidy is the only way of dealing with this problem. If I were to go into the question of subsidies, I could suggest many areas of Government spending which could be appropriately cut in order to make way for the very small amount which would be required to provide a subsidy on the basis of that which was provided in 1974.
However, I am not now recommending a national subsidy and I should like to take this opportunity of repudiating a misrepresentation of my hon. Friend the Member for Bodmin (Mr. Hicks) that was made last week by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture. Fisheries and Food when answering a


Question on this subject. My hon. Friend was not recommending a national, British subsidy. What he and I were pressing for was that the Minister should, in Brussels with his Community partners, press for a common EEC approach to this question, because if it can be agreed between the nine member countries that they all approach this problem in the same way, it can be less expensive for them all. We can avoid a competition to raise the subsidies which each nation is giving to its own growers.
That is the approach that my hon. Friend and I should like the Government to adopt, but so far, regrettably, we see no sign that they are doing so. I hope that it will be possible for the Lord President to assure the House that his right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture will press his colleagues along those lines when he next visits Brussels, because the alternative to some new arrangements by the Government, preferably on joint EEC lines, is that many of the growers, including the most efficient growers, will find that their livelihood is in danger.
This industry produces an output worth tens of millions of pounds a year. If our growers go out of business, it will mean for the housewife higher prices, because our competitors will be left in more of a monopoly position, and it will mean for Britain a burden on our balance of payments. I cannot think that either of those things is what the Government want.

5.32 p.m.

Mr. A. P. Costain: I support my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Blaker) in his remarks. It is about time that the House had a debate on horticulture because it is such an important subject. My hon. Friend mentioned the extra cost of oil, and this also means extra transport costs.
We must realise that this is one of our industries which ought to be much more self-sufficient. Many of us go to the Royal Horticultural Show, which is held quite near the House, and to the Chelsea Flower Show. These indicate what ability we have as a nation to supply ourselves with flowers and food, and what

a pity it is that we do not have the ability to give the industry more support. I do not necessarily ask for financial support by way of subsidy. My hon. Friend has referred to talks with the horticulture industry. All that it asks for is a fair deal and that if support is given by the other nations within the EEC, we should have the same.
We also need to consider much more deeply the question of diseases in the industry. We are hearing some very alarming reports at present about the spread of a new plum disease, one which even very sensible and considerate growers are worried about. If this disease, which causes a plum scab, continues to spread, it is likely that within the next five years we shall not be able to grow a single Victoria plum. As the plum is my particular fruit, I ask the Government to take up the matter quickly.
I was delighted to see on the Order Paper that a Statutory Instrument dealing with a grubbing-up grant for apples and pears is to be laid before the House. I hope that we shall debate that soon after the House returns.
This is not a time to delay the House as we have long hours ahead of us. However, there is one other subject with which I want to deal. It has already been raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Devon, West (Mr. Mills). That is the question of rural transport. My hon. Friend developed the idea of the small minibus. I support that. We are having great trouble in my area in regard to transport for school children. When I tell the House that it is cheaper now to take children to school by taxi than it is by public transport, provided that one gets five children in a taxi, that will indicate the problem.
There is a particular case to which I want to draw the attention of the House. An enterprising taxi driver in my constituency recently had the idea that instead of picking up five children who had to walk to a central point and be collected there, in the winter it would be an excellent thing to pick them up outside the gates of their homes—as would any ordinary individual with a private car. The House may believe it or not, but for that public service he has been fined over £60. What an absurdity of our law it is that an enterprising taxi driver


who tries to get children to school at a reasonable price with the greatest convenience to himself is met with a heavy fine.
The prosecution was introduced by the bus company because it could see that the greater efficiency of the private individual went against the nationalised buses.
Hon. Members will remember that we recently received a deputation of bus drivers in Kent, who are very concerned—I share their concern—that they will be put out of work because fares are running away with themselves. I asked them what would be their attitude towards each of them being given a minibus. They gladly agreed with the idea. That gave me one of the best examples of how nationalised industries have become really expensive.
I should like to raise one other point about horticulture. My hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South made special reference to the great increase in the cost of heating. Here again, North Sea gas is now an excellent medium for fuelling the heating systems of greenhouses, because it has a CO2 content which helps growth. What an opportunity! However, a number of commercial growers do not have gas laid on. Instead of wasting money producing motor cars that people do not want, should not we be producing more gas mains? If that is too uneconomical, would it not be possible to put skilled workers to work producing pressurised containers to supply growers with gas? We used to import methane gas from North Africa in pressurised containers. Surely it is not too much to ask that North Sea gas should be transported to our inland growers, who are growing our vegetables.

5.38 p.m.

Mr. Robert Adley: In five and a half years as a Member of this House, I find it hard to think of any other occasion when there has been more reason why the House should not adjourn, in view of the problems that face this country.
We have a Secretary of State for Employment who is presiding over the creation of more workless. We have a Secretary of State for Defence who is

intent on leaving this country defenceless. We have a Secretary of State for Social Services who looks like leaving the National Health Service doctorless. We have a Secretary of State for the Environment who has so far managed to increase the number of homeless significantly. We have a Prime Minister about whom the less that is said the better. We have a country that is beginning to despair of a Government who seem quite incapable of facing the country with the truth, with which sooner or later they will have to confront the country.
After hearing the Lord President at Question Time today, answering for the Prime Minister, saying that we had to rely on the United States and West Germany to reflate their economies, I think that I am entitled to suggest that it comes ill out of the mouth of a Socialist Government to call on capitalist countries to get them out of trouble. Why do they not ask their friends in Czechoslovakia, Poland or the Soviet Union, those great examples of Socialist paradises, to give them a helping hand?
I turn from those opening remarks, apologising if I have been controversial—

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Privy Council Office (Mr. William Price): No one takes any notice.

Mr. Adley: The hon. Gentleman says that no one takes any notice.

Mr. William Price: Not of you.

Mr. Adley: I hope that the hon. Gentleman feels proud of the remarks he has made, as usual from a sedentary position.

Mr. Arthur Palmer: Should not the hon. Gentleman apologise for being rather silly?

Mr. Adley: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is a good judge of silliness. I should not like to debate that matter with him.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Oscar Murton): Order. We have been going rather wide of the subject.

Mr. Adley: I wish to discuss the boating industry in my constituency, which employs many people in the manufacture,


servicing, repair and sale of boats and ancillary equipment. I thank the Chancellor of the Exchequer for his action yesterday in removing some of the hire-purchase restrictions on the industry. It would be churlish not to recognise that that will go some way towards helping to repair the severe damage done to the boat manufacturing industry by the imposition of 25 per cent. VAT.
The boating industry has good labour relations. It has a good export record, and it does not require Government subsidies. The 25 per cent. VAT has been a severe handicap to it. I hope that the Lord President will be able to prevail on the Chancellor to consider taking a further step back towards giving the industry a chance to play its proper part in the economy by removing the 25 per cent. VAT, which, certainly in my constituency, has a direct bearing on jobs.
A number of the boat builders in my constituency have had no home market orders since the imposition of the increased rate of tax, which is entirely non-productive for the Treasury. It brings in no more revenue. Twenty-five per cent. of £10 is less than 10 per cent.—or 8 per cent.—of £100. That is the sort of mathematics which the Treasury must take into consideration following the Chancellor's action in increasing VAT.
My hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Costain) mentioned a situation in his constituency where the law was an ass. The VAT regulations on the importation of boats by foreign owners provide another example of the law being an ass. Until a few weeks ago Customs and Excise was in the habit of turning a blind eye to a particularly silly regulation, under which if a foreign boat owner brings his boat here to sell it, and thereafter to buy a British boat, the act of importation becomes the transaction upon which not only import duty but VAT must be paid. It is one thing to have in mind selling a boat or any other article, and another thing actually to sell it, for there is many a slip twixt cup and lip.
Whereas until now Customs and Excise has tacitly agreed that VAT was not due until a boat was sold, it has now started insisting, in view of the large sums of money involved with 25 per cent. VAT, on levying the tax on anyone who brings

a boat here with the intention of selling it. That has the immediate effect of making sure that nobody will bring his boat here to try to sell it in order to buy a British boat from a British boatyard. This will have a particularly harsh effect on my constituency. I do not believe that the matter was given sufficient consideration by the Treasury when VAT was introduced. I am making no party point. It is not solely as a result of the 25 per cent.—

Mr. Edward Short: The hon. Gentleman has made party points before—why not now?

Mr. Adley: I like to be frank and fair. Sometimes when I am frank I may not please the right hon. Gentleman, but I try to be fair and to present the facts as my constituents see them.
I suspect that the present situation was never foreseen when VAT was introduced. When the rate was 10 per cent. Customs and Excise never felt it necesary precisely to implement the law. Now it is doing so, with a detrimental effect on my constituency and many others where there are boatyards, where people's jobs depend on building and selling boats. I should be grateful if the Lord President would pass this point on to the Chancellor.
I support what my hon. Friends the Members for Ludlow (Mr. More) and Blackpool, South (Mr. Blaker) said about defence. We have an opportunity not only to bolster our defence sales but to increase employment by being more imaginative in looking to certain countries to which we do not traditionally sell arms. I think particularly of the Harrier. I very much hope that the number of countries, particularly in Asia, which are on our barred list now may be reduced and that our restrictions on our arms sales may apply in future only to those countries which we consider a potential threat to the security of the United Kingdom.

5.46 p.m.

Mr. John Peyton: I mean no disrespect to right hon. or hon. Members on either side of the House who have spoken in the debate when I say that perhaps the most eloquent contributions have been the speeches which were not made. I refer to those right hon. and


hon. Members who voted with their feet and went home, thus being eloquently in favour of the immediate adjournment of the House for Christmas, which they have anticipated. [Interruption.] Neither side of the House is particularly crowded. I think that the hon. Gentleman will agree with me on that. I am not asking him to go too far in agreement with me.
I had better leave the right hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Stonehouse) and the hon. Member for Watford (Mr. Tuck) to the tender mercies of their right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, although I should like to make two comments on what they said.
The right hon. Member for Walsall, North observed that his right hon. Friend the Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs had conducted the Icelandic negotiations in a deplorable manner. He then produced the rather odd excuse that his right hon. Friend had been badly briefed.

Mr. Stonehouse: I am criticising the Government as a whole, not merely the Minister of State. I am criticising the Foreign Secretary in particular for not agreeing to the Icelandic proposal that the catch of cod should be restricted to 65,000 tons. With that agreement, a cod war could have been avoided. It was not merely the Minister of State who was at fault but Ministers as a whole.

Mr. Peyton: We are obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for clearing up the point, but he said—I am sure that he did not mean it—that his right hon. Friend had had a bad brief. I do not think that that would be an adequate ministerial excuse, but I leave the matter to the Leader of the House.
The hon. Member for Watford, who, sadly, is no longer present, expressed sentiments, with which I think we would all agree, sympathetic to those who are disabled, and spoke of their problems in getting about. At the end of his speech he asked "What has happened to this party?", referring to the party which rejoices in his support. It said much for the weariness or courtesy of my hon. Friends that he did not get a sharp answer. My hon. Friends are well known for their politeness and restraint, and on this occasion they were unable to find anything adequate to say.
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Thanet, West (Mr. Rees-Davies), properly reminded the House that we had some residual responsibilities in Cyprus, and said that we should seek by all means in our power to foster peace between Greece and Turkey. Without in the least disagreeing, I wonder whether a Select Committee is the most desirable way of securing that end. I personally believe that a proliferation of Select Committees can have an adverse effect on the House of Commons, although Leaders of the House sometimes find it convenient to ensure that Members of Parliament are not in the Chamber but elsewhere.
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Thanet, West, who is not now in his place, made a plea concerning the requirements imposed upon turkey producers. My hon. Friend the Member for Devon, West (Mr. Mills), who, sadly, is not in the Chamber either, also made an extended plea on behalf of all poultry producers. I give them my support. We are in danger of landing ourselves in a bureaucratic muddle with all kinds of fancy requirements which, if carried too far, would have the effect of putting the small producer out of business.
I am not familiar with the niceties of New York-dressed birds with which my hon. Friend the Member for Devon, West threatened us. He said that New York-dressed birds will become quite a feature of the House of Commons. I am bound to say that one had to resist certain speculative fancies as to where we might end up.
My hon. Friend then mentioned minibuses. That subject was also taken up by my hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Costain). Bumbledom has gone crazy in its dealings with rural transport. A long time ago I raised a case which occurred in my constituency when some innocent housewives who took their daily way to work in a taxi were spied upon by an enterprising bus operator. At that point the whole machinery of bumbledom crept into action, and their innocent activity was stopped to their great inconvenience. The constituent of my hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe has been visited with the full ferocity of the law and fined £60. All that he was doing was indulging in


a profitable livelihood for himself and doing good for members of the public. I wish that some of those people responsible for such activities could from time to time see themselves in the mirror.
The hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing), who, sadly enough, is not in his place, expressed his dissatisfaction with the way in which certain of his right hon. and hon. Friends conduct the business of the House. Again, I think it proper that I should leave the hon. Gentleman to the tender mercies of the Lord President.
My hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Mr. Biggs-Davison), who is also absent from his place—

Mr. Biggs-Davison: No, I am here.

Mr. Peyton: I hope that my hon. Friend will forgive me if I made almost an instinctive error. It is so nice to welcome him here and to invite him to listen to what I have to say about his contribution. My hon. Friend is to be distinguished in that he mentioned that this is a debate having something to do with the Adjournment for the Christmas Recess. I should be churlish if I did not congratulate him for making that observation. I also take note of his serious point about the non-peaceful Soviet activities in Angola and how little we hear about such matters in the House. There is the implication that we can afford to be blind to such matters. As he rightly said, the Government have little to say about the situation in Angola, although the subject of defence cuts is ever with us and ever green. It seems that in that area there are always new possibilities. One wonders what dire effect such cuts could ultimately have upon the nation's safety.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr. More) very properly concentrated on the same theme. I believe that it is one to which we should return again and again in an attempt to elicit from the Government some satisfactory assurances regarding the safety of our country.
My hon. Friend the Member for Melton (Mr. Latham) has been good enough to send me copies of his correspondence with the Lord President. My hon. Friend mentioned the expansion of the Civil Service. He acknowledged—it is not always done by those who speak on these lines—

that the expansion of the Civil Service stems from Ministers and their activities. The Civil Service is not self-expanding. It does not expand except to serve the whims of Ministers, some of which are from time to time ridiculous and overweening. My hon. Friend quoted examples of gobbledegook which often adorn public utterances.
My hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Blaker) properly supported my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow. He also reiterated a plea that has been made in the House again and again in recent years—namely, to inquire what the Government are intending to do about the glasshouse industry. I entirely endorse what my hon. Friends have said. Unless we are careful we shall not have a glasshouse industry and we shall be left at the mercy of overseas competitors. Not only will our balance of payments suffer but we shall have the miserable experience of having inflicted serious, if not irreparable, loss upon a decent, hard-working and deserving section of the community.
My hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch and Lymington (Mr. Adley) had some strong words to say about the Administration. His comments were not really in the Christmas spirit. I am sure that he was not altogether surprised when there were one or two sharp reactions from the Government Front Bench. He made a most important and valuable point about the boating industry and the considerable blow that it has suffered as a result of the 25 per cent. VAT.
As it is Christmas and as we are contemplating leaving this place for a bit, may I indulge in expressing the wish that on such occasions as this we might have the presence of certain Ministers whom we would like to see having a festive meal of their own words? We should also like to have the presence of one or two Ministers who have said nothing at all. I mean no disrespect to the Lord President, to whom I wish unreservedly a happy Christmas, when I say that it would be rather nice to have the presence of his colleague the Secretary of State for Education and Science, who when the Opposition spokesman for transport used to say "Let us have a transport policy" whenever the opportunity arose. By some strange fate the


right hon. Gentleman was wafted back to a post he had held at an earlier stage, returning to his customary silence. Now, rather oddly, the right hon. Gentleman has moved to education, but he does not seem able to say very much about the difficulties now facing the educational world. One wonders whether, had he been on the Opposition Benches in such circumstances, he might possibly have found the residue of a tongue.
Then there is the right hon. Gentleman one always misses in this House, the Secretary of State for Education—

Mr. William Price: He has already been dealt with.

Mr. Peyton: The Parliamentary Secretary to the Privy Council Office has a characteristic pose for interventions—feet on the table, hands in his pockets, totally relaxed, not particularly constructive or very original. If he wishes to make a proper intervention on his feet, I shall be glad to give way to him. I think that we have sufficient patience to endure it.
I meant to refer to the Secretary of State for Employment, who has a bigger meal of words to eat than anybody. He was at one time champion of the rights of free speech, the liberty of the individual, the rights of Parliament and all the rest of it. How sad it all seems now.
It must have been greatly satisfying to Mr. Kenneth Fleet, the distinguished correspondent of the Daily Telegraph, to find himself in yesterday's debate referred to with approval by the Secretary of State for Employment. I cannot resist the temptation of quoting Mr. Kenneth Fleet who comments sadly and bitterly in today's Daily Telegraph:
The pork barrel is empty of meat let alone crackling. … It has to be admitted that those highly intelligent men at the heart of our affairs, together with the dross that makes up the Cabinet, are beginning to seem in disarray.
Mr. Fleet looks for a curtailing of the enormous spending of central and local authorities, and he comments that it is just as important as the cessation of Labour's manic urge to control and interfere with every aspect of business life. He ends with the phrase
Confidence is low; dispiritedness is high.
It is very sad indeed that that should be the message to go out on this occasion. Although the Government and Ministers

may be wholly unaware of the main source of that low confidence and dis-spiritedness, we are not unaware of it, nor is the nation.

6.4 p.m.

Mr. Edward Short: At least I can say one thing to the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton)—and that is to reciprocate his good wishes for a happy Christmas. Since he spoke about a pork barrel, I might say that his speech contained no meat but a great deal of crackle.
The right hon. Gentleman also mentioned the eating of words. I remind him of what I said on that subject to his right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Whitelaw) at Question Time. I would also remind the right hon. Member for Yeovil that he was Minister for Transport for a period of four years and presumably supported the then Government's policy. What has happened to that policy? The Conservatives are certainly now pursuing a completely different policy. I know that the right hon. Gentleman lost something. What about all the word-eating he has to go in for? He has something to answer for in his period of office. However, I have said sufficient on that score, because this is a season of good will.

Mr. Peyton: The point I made was that when the Conservatives were in office the then Labour Opposition made a great bleat about the lack of a White Paper on transport. When Labour reached office we expected them to provide such a document, but once again, as in a previous Parliament, they failed to do so. It does not lie in the right hon. Gentleman's mouth to complain about anything we did or about our relationships with the railways.

Mr. Short: The right hon. Gentleman is obviously sensitive on this matter. I repeat that he was Minister for Transport for a period of four years. In that time rural transport became more meagre and threw up a worse situation than even in the middle of the nineteenth century. But enough of that. I hope the right hon. Gentleman has a very happy Christmas.
The right hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Stonehouse) raised the subject of Dr. Sakharov. It is a matter of great


regret to Her Majesty's Government that he was not allowed to travel to Oslo to collect the Nobel Peace Prize. He had no passport. However, I do not think that it would be helpful for Her Majesty's Government to make formal representations on a matter in which we have no legal standing.
The CSCE negotiations recorded the determination of States participating in the talks to put into practice principles respecting human rights and fundamental freedoms and their intention to facilitate wider travel by citizens for personal and professional reasons.
As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said in Helsinki on 30th July, it is desirable that all the signatories of the Final Act should fully implement all the provisions. We would regret any action that ran counter to them. The Final Act of the CSCE includes provisions for freedom of movement of individuals for short visits or permanent settlement. All the participating States declared their commitment to the implementation of the provisions. We shall abide by those provisions and we shall expect other States to do the same. It is still too early to assess the practical implications of the Final Act. I repeat that we very much regret that this gentleman was not allowed to travel.
The right hon. Gentleman also raised the question of Icelandic fisheries. My right hon. Friend the Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth affairs made a full statement on this subject in the House on 12th December and answered questions arising from that statement. Since then the matter has been raised in the United Nations Security Council, on 16th December, when statements were made by Iceland and the United Kingdom.
The British Government remain ready and willing to resume negotiations anywhere at any time, and we hope that the Icelandic Government will soon show that they are prepared to resume talks. I wish to repeat and emphasise that Her Majesty's Government are willing to resume negotiations at any time. But, on the other hand, we are determined to protect the reasonable interests of the fishing industry, in accordance with international law. I point out to the right hon. Member for Walsall, North that

we have behind us two international decisions confirming that our view is correct.

Mr. Stonehouse: Is it not a fact that the Foreign Secretary has conceded that we had a proposed agreement with the Icelanders on a figure of 65,000 tons a year? Why did we not reach that agreement? Why are we continuing to go on with this confrontation?

Mr. Short: One can always reach agreement if one is prepared to give way all along the line. Every concession that we have made has been pocketed by the Icelanders, and they have then said "Thank you very much. What is the next concession?" If we are prepared to give away British interests all the time we can reach agreement, but we are not prepared to do so.
I turn to the question of Angola, which was raised by the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mr. Biggs-Davison) and a number of others. I understand the concern on this subject. The Government's policy has been made clear on a number of occasions. For example there was a Written Answer on this matter on 26th November, reported in Hansard, in column 203. We deeply deplore outside intervention, from whatever source it comes. We believe that it should be for the Angolan people themselves, with help, if they wish it, from the OAU, to work out their own future. Her Majesty's Government have not recognised either of the rival groups. Neither meets our well-known criteria for recognition. We deplore intervention, from wherever it comes, and we hope that the Angolan people will be left free to decide their own future.
The hon. Member for Torbay (Sir F. Bennett) and the hon. and learned Member for Thanet, West (Mr. Rees-Davies)—they have both gone now, and have sent me notes explaining why they had to leave—raised the question of the law of treason. The present law of treason is archaic in the extreme and, as was pointed out, it has been referred to the Law Commission for review as part of its programme of codification of the criminal law. To succeed in a charge of treason in a case concerning the activities of terrorists it would be necessary to show that the activity amounted to levying a war. There are, however, other


relatively modern statutes under which charges can be brought, such as the Explosives Substances Act 1883 and the Firearms Act 1868. These are provisions which are more appropriate, the use of which is more likely to lead to successful prosecutions.
My hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Mr. Tuck)—I am sorry that he is not in his place—made an utterly irresponsible speech. First, he raised the question of vehicles for disabled people. My hon. Friend the Minister for Transport in a recent speech to the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents, spoke at great length on the safety of the invalid tricycle. He made it clear, yet again, that he sees no reason to withdraw the tricycle on safety grounds. My hon. Friend has published a good deal more about the safety of the tricycle than all previous Ministers put together.
My hon. Friend also made some astounding claims about the mobility allowance for the disabled, saying, among other things, that we were withdrawing it from the over-65s. It is difficult to see how we could withdraw something that has never been paid. There has been no mobility allowance in the past. It is being phased in. We are trebling the expenditure on mobility for the disabled as compared with expenditure under the previous Government. A total of 100,000 people are being given help who had no help before. This figure includes 30,000 children. We are the first Government to offer any assistance to disabled persons who are too severer handicapped to drive.
I draw to the attention of the House the motion on the Order Paper signed by a good many hon. Members congratulating the Government
on giving outdoor mobility help, for the first time ever, to an extra 100,000 severely disabled people who will now receive the new mobility allowance of £260 a year.
When the hon. Gentleman was speaking I obtained a check-list of the things that my hon. Friend has done to help the disabled. It is a most impressive list, containing 30 or 40 concrete measures. Whatever criticisms may be made of the Government, this criticism is not one of them, and I reject it utterly. My hon. Friend was utterly irresponsible in his remarks.
The hon. and learned Member for Thanet, West raised the subject of Cyprus and turkey—not the Turkey next to Cyprus; the other one. He spoke of the Cyprus Select Committee. I pointed out, during questions on the Business Statement today, that I am proposing to table a motion that will give the House an opportunity of deciding whether it wishes to reappoint a Select Committee on Cyprus. I believe that such a Committee should have a limited function. It has been to Cyprus and taken evidence, and it would be reasonable to appoint it for a limited time only, to enable it to complete its report. However, I shall put this on the Order Paper, and the House can make the decision.
I would like to say a word about Cyprus. The Government, in concert with our European partners and our American allies, are actively engaged in sustained diplomatic activity to try to bring about a resumption of negotiations. Continuing confidential exchanges—the most recent being directly between the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary and the Greek and Turkish Foreign Ministers in the margin of the NATO Council meeting in Brussels—hold out the best hope of achieving the flexibility necessary if progress is to be made. The Government earnestly hope that these efforts will soon bear fruit and that the negotiations will shortly be resumed. But these efforts are much better pursued in confidence. I see no advantage whatever in having a debate at present.
The hon. and learned Gentleman also raised the question of the availability of fresh poultry. Some recent Press reports have given the impression that from 1977 onwards fresh poultry will virtually disappear from our market and we shall be left with only the frozen variety. That is not so. There will certainly be a reduction in the quantity of poultry that is traded with the guts intact. We already have a substantial output of birds that are sold fresh after evisceration in a plant designed for that task. There is every reason to expect that the output of this type of fresh poultry, handled under proper conditions of hygiene, will, in the years ahead, expand to meet the demand.
The EEC directives on poultry hygiene require us to phase out the sale of un-eviscerated poultry—that is, New York-dressed poultry—which currently accounts for up to 25 per cent. of the Christmas turkey trade and much less of the all-year-round chicken trade. After August 1981 sales of New York-dressed poultry will be confined to consumer purchases from the farm. Between August 1977 and August 1981 birds may be sold additionally through local retail outlets or markets, provided that they are slaughtered and plucked in suitable premises. The impression fostered by the New York-dressed turkey lobby is that its poultry is the only type of fresh poultry available. That is incorrect. Several supermarkets chains now sell poultry that has been eviscerated under hygienic conditions in a poultry plant rather than a butcher's shop.
There is every reason to expect that the poultry processing industry, which is highly flexible, will meet the full demand for the unfrozen product in the years ahead. But for the Government's efforts in Brussels it would have been necessary to end the New York-dressed trade—other than farm-gate sales to consumers—by February 1976.
My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) raised once more the question of our procedures for scrutinising EEC documents. He referred to the amount of time to be allowed in the Merits Committee. What he said was correct. In the debate on the subject, my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Privy Council Office promised that if the House passed the motion we would amend Standing Orders, after discussions, in a way that seemed convenient to most Members. All I can say is that we have not yet reached agreement. My hon. Friend has given me his views about this, but a number of other hon. Members have views, too. We looked at the motion for this week and decided that an hour and a half would be adequate. When a motion is tabled it is up to any hon. Member to make representations to me that the time is not adequate. I shall always be prepared to put more time into the motion.
As soon as we are able to reach some sort of consensus on the way in which

the Standing Orders should be amended I shall take steps to have them amended—

Mr. Spearing: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for what he said, but he has not mentioned the request that I made on the question whether this motion could be held over until after Christmas. Secondly, I am not aware of the other representations or the difficulties that will prevent the five sitting days, as long as the EEC Commission provides this House with documents in time for them to be considered before the meeting of the Council of Ministers, which I would have thought was a reasonable enough request.

Mr. Short: My hon. Friend has a point of view on this, which he has given me. I have discussed it with him. It is different from the points of view of others. All I am trying to do is to reach agreement between the contending points of view. I may not succeed. In that case I shall put something on the Order Paper and it will have to take its chance. In the meantime, I am quite happy, when one of these motions is referred to the Merits Committee, to discuss with my hon. Friend or anyone else how much time should be allowed. If we need to amend the Standing Order requirement about one and a half hours I should be very happy to do that.
The hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mr. Biggs-Davison) raised the question of Angola, to which I have already referred. He wanted an assurance that no defence cuts would be announced during the recess. I can give him that assurance. There will be no cuts and no announcement of cuts before the House resumes.
The hon. Member for Devon, West (Mr. Mills), who has apologised for having to leave the debate, raised the question of rural transport. I am well aware of the widespread concern and the transport problems experienced by those living in rural areas. When I was Postmaster-General, I introduced the post bus. I am sorry that it has not caught on. We introduced six experiments in different parts of the country. I have always felt that if that were pursued, in some areas a good deal more use could be made of Post Office facilities for carrying passengers, as happens in other countries in Europe.
The issues are complex. My hon. Friend the Minister for Transport announced, on 3rd December, the conclusions of a study on rural transport over the past 18 months which involved wide-ranging discussions with interested bodies. The study revealed that there was no agreed solution to the problems, which can vary widely from one area to another. As my hon. Friend said, the Government intend to promote a number of experimental schemes in Britain to test, on the ground, what can be done to help rural communities within the public service vehicle licensing code and a modest relaxation of licensing for a limited period within the areas of the schemes. It is hoped that these schemes will provide the evidence, which has so far been lacking, of how to meet rural transport needs effectively while safeguarding the essential interests of public transport operators and their staffs.
A special problem arises with minibuses, when they are owned by education establishments and other bodies and operated for hire or reward as defined in the Road Traffic Act 1960—that is, when payment is made in consideration of a right to be carried, or any matters that include carriage. There has been a misunderstanding of the extent to which current operations are legal. The Department has been trying to clarify this with Age Concern and other bodies, in order to assist their operations. However, amending the law on hire or reward is an issue with profound implications, since public service vehicle licensing underpins the road passenger transport system, but the Government are actively considering all the issues involved in this matter. I must say it was a bit much for the right hon. Member for Yeovil to raise this matter. He was Minister for Transport for four years and did nothing to improve road transport services.

Mr. Peyton: The right hon. Gentleman must understand the burden of my complaint. The last Labour Government did nothing while it was in office, and when we were in office Labour Members complained constantly about the lack of a White Paper, completely forgetting all the difficulties involved. Since they have been back in office, they have again done nothing. I am not ignoring the difficulties—far from it—but it is very strange

that only in opposition is the Labour Party eloquent.

Mr. Short: The right hon. Gentleman was the responsible Minister for four years, and he did nothing. He has confirmed that fact. I was not Minister of Transport, but I did something by starting the post bus scheme. At least I tried something. The right hon. Gentleman did not try anything at all.
The hon. Member for Ludlow (Mr. More) spoke about defence. I have nothing to add to what has already been said on this subject. I assure him that no cuts will be made that impair our contribution to NATO. We are still spending on defence a higher percentage of our gross domestic product than are all our principal allies in Europe. It is the policy of this Government, on which we were elected, that, in GDP terms, our contribution should be roughly equivalent to that of our principal allies. That was the policy on which we fought the last election and on which we got 1 million more votes and 42 more seats than did the Conservative Party. That objective was included in our manifesto and we are working towards it. We can claim that this has the assent of the electorate. [An HON. MEMBER: "Ask them again."] We shall ask them again, and my guess is that Opposition Members will still be sitting on that side of the Chamber.

Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Would it be possible to silence the London Welshman on the Front Bench opposite who keeps interrupting the Leader of the House from a sedentary position.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. George Thomas): I hesitate to say whether the hon. Gentleman in question is a London Welshman, but I am willing to do my best on the other part of the question.

Mr. Short: The hon. Member for Ludlow asked for increased expenditure on defence. He indicates his assent. But his party is always talking about the need for cuts in public expenditure. As I said in a previous debate, the Opposition talk cuts and act expenditure. They shout their heads off about the need for cuts and then ask for increased expenditure. The hon. Member for Ludlow did just that.
The hon. Member for Melton (Mr. Latham) spoke about the number of civil servants—a matter in which he takes an intelligent and constructive interest and on which we have already had some correspondence. The Civil Service has to be staffed to carry out the work given to it not only by Ministers but by Parliament. We shall need more staff to implement benefit and taxation policies, and the demand for existing services—the hon. Member mentioned unemployment for instance—is likely to go on increasing. I assure the House that any addition to the Civil Service will be the absolute minimum necessary for efficient working. It will be subject to strict controls.

Mr. Stonehouse: Rubbish.

Mr. Short: The right hon. Gentleman is an expert on rubbish.

Mr. Stonehouse: The jibes about my being absent have gone too far. I have been accused of being a "runaway MP" but in the last few weeks we have seen so many stay away Members of Parliament that they should forget these jibes against me. Is it not a fact that the non-industrial Civil Service has increased by 30 per cent. in the past 12 years? Nobody could argue that the Civil Service has been given 30 per cent. more work. What the nation needs is more efficient cost effectiveness in the jobs they are doing. They would not then be allowed to grow in the way they are growing.

Mr. Short: The hon. Member for Melton said that the devolution unit was a classic example of what he was talking about, but that unit employs only 32 civil servants out of a total force of 719,000. If any exercise in Government is being done economically, it is this one. I know the hours that these 32 people have worked.

Mr. Michael Latham: I was not suggesting that the devolution unit was the sole reason for the increase in Government staff. It is an example of the way in which policies produce extra manpower for the Civil Service.

Mr. Short: But this is the policy of the hon. Member's party as well. In the last election all parties except the Unionists campaigned with a policy for

establishing a directly-elected Assembly in Scotland. This is being done with 32 civil servants dealing with devolution and any constitutional matters which come up in Government. The figure of 32 is the entire staff, right down to the typists, and the cost quoted by the hon. Member is not just for salaries but for the whole exercise, right down to heating and rent.
The hon. Member asked what action was being taken to reduce waste. There is a regular programme of staff inspection and a system of management reviews. We intend to see where future scope exists for increasing efficiency or achieving economies in administration. This process is going on all the time, and is being intensified. It is an ongoing review, and we shall implement changes as it proceeds. However, there is no question of publishing a final report, because it is going on all the time. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept my assurance that we are very much aware of the problem that he raised and are watching it at every single point.
The hon. Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Blaker) and the hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Costain) asked about the glasshouse sector of agriculture. This has been an old favourite in Adjournment debates for some years. I appreciate the concern of glasshouse growers about the recently announced oil price increases. However, the Government's decision not to reintroduce the temporary subsidy paid to growers in 1974 was made in the light of national financial and energy policies, and at present there is no prospect of that decision being changed.
The subsidy was paid in 1974 to help the glasshouse growers adapt to the suddent increase in fuel oil prices which occurred when their cropping plans were already made. In April of this year, the EEC Commissioner for Agriculture, Mr. Lardinois, announced an extension to the Commission's guidelines on fuel oil subsidies to permit a subsidy of not more than one-third of the rise in prices between 1st September 1973 and when the measure was decided for oil consumed between 1st July 1975 and 30th June 1976.
The condition was that the price of natural gas should be equalised with the subsidised price of oil. Only the Dutch and Belgians have taken advantage of


this. Since about three-quarters of the Dutch industry uses natural gas, the overall cost of increased gas prices will more than offset the oil subsidy and thus reduce the overall competitive position of the Dutch and eventually cancel it out.
On 2nd and 3rd December 1975, all the major oil companies in the United Kingdom announced increases in the price of fuel oils of about 3p a gallon for heavy oils, which are those mainly used by horticulturists, and about 6p a gallon for gas and diesel oils. In part, this rise is due to the 10 per cent. OPEC increase in crude oil prices on 1st October. But other important factors have been sterling devaluation and general inflation.
These increases naturally led to demands for the reintroduction of the oil subsidy, but when the United Kingdom subsidy was announced in 1974, it was clear that there was no question of insulating growers against the effects of higher energy costs in the longer term. In line with national policies, I am afraid that growers have to come to terms with higher energy costs, like all other uses. All the available evidence suggests—I have inquired about this again today—that growers this year have generally been able to recoup these higher costs from the market. There are also indications that they are using their fuel a good deal more sparingly than in the past, and this is to be welcomed.
The hon. Member for Blackpool, South also suggested that we should try to get some agreement between EEC countries on this matter. I shall pass his request to my right hon. Friend the Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs.
As I said just now, the hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe also asked about horticulture.
The hon. Member for Christchurch and Lymington (Mr. Adley) was a little offensive in his opening remarks, and I think that it would be as well for an older Member to advise the hon. Gentleman that his behaviour reduces his effectiveness as a Member. He would be much more effective if he could discuss matters objectively, without giving offence to people.
The hon. Gentleman talked about me today as a Socialist Minister who invited

capitalist countries to reflate. I might point out to him that West Germany has a Labour Government almost identical, in philosophy, policy and outlook, to the British Labour Party. The West German party is one with which the British Labour Party has closer contacts than with any other Labour Party anywhere in the world. We are similar, almost identical parties.

Mr. Adley: What industries have the German Government nationalised?

Mr. Short: I am saying that the Socialist Government in Germany have very close links with the Labour Party and the Labour Government here. To say that they are a capitalist Government and that we are a Communist Government, which is what the hon. Member said, is not only stupid but highly offensive.
The hon. Gentleman talked about the effect of VAT on the boat builders in his constituency. I hope that he will tell his boat builders that what he complained about was introduced by his own Government.

Mr. Peyton: That is not true.

Mr. Short: It is absolutely true. What is more, if an hon. Member chooses to start off on this footing, he gets that kind of reply, and the hon. Member for Christchurch and Lymington must understand that—[interruption.] We seem to be having a demonstration of very good manners from the Opposition Front Bench. All the time they sit there mumbling, but they have not the courage or guts to get to their feet.
Having said that to the hon. Member for Christchurch and Lymington, I shall pass on to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer the hon. Member's question whether any possible relief can be given. I think that the hon. Gentleman is making a valid point. Of course, some relief was given yesterday. The hon. Gentleman paid tribute to that. But I shall pass his point to my right hon. Friend—[Interruption.]

Mr. Biggs-Davison: Since the right hon. Gentleman is handing out admonitions all round, perhaps he will persuade his hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Privy Council Office not to interrupt in such a rude fashion from a sedentary position.

Mr. William Price: I have been provoked.

Mr. Short: My hon. Friend is normally as good as gold unless provoked.
I hope that I have answered all the matters raised by hon. Members and that the House will now be able to resolve the Question that we all go off for Christmas. I wish right hon. and hon. Members in all parts of the House a happy Christmas.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House at its rising tomorrow do adjourn till Monday 12th January.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (CONSOLIDATED FUND BILL)

Ordered,
That, notwithstanding the practice of the House relating to the interval between the various stages of Bills of aids and supplies, more than one stage of the Consolidated Fund Bill may be proceeded with at this day's sitting.—[Mr. Stoddart.]

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c

Ordered,
That Commission Document No. R/2627/75 relating to the Overall Concept for the Next Multi-Annual Research Programme of the Joint Research Centre be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.
That the Horticulture (Apple and Pea; Growers) (Special Payments) (Variation) Scheme 1975 (S.I., 1975, No. 1999) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.—[Mr. Stoddart.]

Orders of the Day — CONSOLIDATED FUND BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Orders of the Day — NUCLEAR REACTOR PROJECT

6.37 p.m.

Mr. Arthur Palmer: The subject that I wish to raise on the Second Reading of the Consolidated Fund Bill is the present position of the high-temperature nuclear research project.
I believe that it is an important matter in itself, and it has a very real bearing on the future of nuclear power in the United Kingdom and in the Western world generally. In my judgment, the importance of the Dragon project, as it is usually known—it is, of course, an OECD project—for the development of the high-temperature nuclear fission system has never been fully understood in the Ministry. I say that because a statement has been made publicly that the high-temperature reactor has no place in the forward thinking of the electricity boards.
If indeed it be the case, then it is a fairly new development. In evidence to the Select Committee on Science and Technology, the Chairman of the Central Electricity Generating Board, Mr. Arthur Hawkins, said, not so long ago, that he saw the high-temperature reactor as a useful intermediate stage before the fast breeder was ready for commercial use.
I do not know whether the Advisory Committee on Nuclear Reactor Choice still exists, but it did exist before we made up our minds on the next generation of British nuclear reactors. The advisory committee also spoke extremely well of the HTR. However, I wish to be fair. The evidence of Mr. Hawkins to the Select Committee and the comments of the advisory committee were made before the Government decided—rightly, in my view—that the SGHW—the steam-generating heavy water reactor—was the best and safest future system for application in new nuclear stations, rather than the


American light water reactor proposed by the CEGB.
But it is a piece of crude reasoning to decide that because we are using for new nuclear stations the more developed SGHW system—of which there has been a prototype in existence for many years—we can drop other valuable nuclear work. That is a crude piece of reasoning, unless it is seriously suggested that we need so many technical and scientific staff on the SGHW reactor that we must concentrate all our efforts upon it, taking them away from the HTR system. If the HTR is finally abandoned, it would be interesting to know how many staff engaged on the project will be switched to other nuclear reactor work.
Apart from British nuclear needs, at a time when energy demand is falling—we hope temporarily—the handling of this matter has been politically inept internationally. The Dragon project is a brilliant example of European scientific collaboration for the general good of the world. Yet my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy has said that we do not have the resources to pursue its further development, but if our partners wish to carry on we have no objection. I pitch my words as moderately as I can, but is that not an example of the national self-satisfaction that makes this country often the despair of even our best friends?
Where is this project? It is where it has been from the start. It is not in the wastes of high Germany, or in some remote province of France. It is in the cosy rural atmosphere of Hardy's Wessex country in Dorset. Winfrith Heath was, I think, the Egdon Heath about which Thomas Hardy wrote. It is impossible to imagine a more English rural environment. The project was started in 1959 and since then the United Kingdom, unlike its partners, has had the advantage of the project being located on its national territory. That is something of which we might well be proud and, from some points of view, grateful. The project brings money to the country apart from scientific and technical prestige.
The figures are difficult to work out, and much depends on the basis on which the calculation is made, but I am told that the net gain to our balance of payments

is, at current values, about £1 million. Indeed, the Secretary of State admitted that in a letter dated 15th September which he wrote to the staff engaged on the HTR project at Winfrith. He said:
I appreciate that Dragon yields a gain to our balance of payments, but the proposed extension would nevertheless involve the United Kingdom in further substantial expenditure".
What is meant by "substantial expenditure"? How is "substantial" defined? Once again, much depends on the basis of the calculation. The extra cost in immediate cash terms, forgetting the considerable offset, is less than £5 million per annum. I am told that the total cost of Dragon is less than 2 per cent. of the Atomic Energy Authority's budget, for which the Supplementary Estimate is about £22 million.
I cannot follow the argument that this is substantial extra expenditure. Whatever figure is taken, the expenditure must be less than £10 million. There is no comparison between that amount and the hundreds of millions of pounds of public money which, last night, the House decided to authorise for the Chrysler rescue.
We have here a nuclear power technology that is only in its infancy. As a Westcountry Member of Parliament, I am beginning to wonder whether there is something in Wessex nationalism after all. If the eccentric people in Wessex who support the separation of Wessex from the United Kingdom were taken serious, we might all be a little more friendly towards the Dragon.
The first open indication that the Government were going slow on the HTR—perhaps one should say going cold, as this is a high-temperature reactor—was in August, when the House was in recess. When our proceedings resumed, I questioned the Secretary of State but he gave a non-committal answer. In addition, my right hon. Friend, in a strenuous session this week before the Select Committee on Science and Technology, answered a run of questions. In addition, I know that there has been a deal of correspondence between the Minister and those most affected at Winfrith. Presumably, there has been an even deeper correspondence—which has not been published, of course—between the Minister and the


headquarters of the Atomic Energy Authority.
I cannot say anything about the evidence that was given to the Select Committee. Although that evidence was in public, it has not yet been published or made officially available. We were anxious to ask my right hon. Friend questions about a number of energy matters. It may be that he would have preferred to be in Brussels, but he was detained at Westminster on parliamentary business.
On Monday 15th December there was a meeting in Brussels. I do not know the exact title of the body but I understand it to have the status of an energy committee of the EEC Council of Ministers. That meeting had some relevance to the question whether Dragon is to live or be slaughtered. I do not know whether my hon. Friend who is to reply attended that meeting as a substitute for my right hon. Friend, but I know that before the meeting took place there was a great deal of diplomatic activity.
On 5th December the future of the Dragon project and the British Government's attitude were discussed by the EEC ambassadors. Unfortunately, in the end no agreement was reached, largely it seems—I hope I am not over-pitching it—because of the United Kingdom's negative attitude. It seems that, on the one hand, we could not say "No", but, on the other, like the young lady of the story, we could not say "Yes" either. It seems that we demand that our partners give a clear indication by 31st March—that is the favoured date—that they will fill the financial gap left by a lower British contribution. Failing that, we are prepared to see the whole project come to an end.
The meeting on Monday was important because many people, including the devoted Winfrith staff, hoped that this matter would appear on the agenda. Once again, the United Kingdom was negative about it. The Government refused to put their name to the matter, despite pressure from those who have for a long time been concerned with this work. I understand that we said, rather sulkily, that it was up to Germany. It is probably well known to those who follow

this subject that the Germans have done a fair amount of independent research work on high-temperature reactor technology.
I do not know for certain whether the matter was raised by the Germans at the meeting on Monday, under the heading, "Any Other Business". There seemed to be some conflicting evidence when my right hon. Friend appeared before the Select Committee. Several notes were passed. That was rather surprising, as communication by telephone is not difficult between London and Brussels. No doubt when my hon. Friend replies he will enlighten us about the situation, since I assume that he was there in Brussels.
However, whatever the Germans do or do not do, is our conduct in this matter worthy of a great country with a high tradition of scientific and technical excellence? There can be no doubt about the quality of the work already done at Winfrith on the high-temperature reactor. I am sure that my hon. Friend would be able to say that about the ability of the staff of the Atomic Energy Authority.
All the experts accept that in principle there can be no doubt about the value of the HTR to our nuclear future. It is a highly flexible system, with valuable technical qualities that are different from those of other reactors. As many types of reactor in future will involve a mixed system, the high-temperature reactor could be a most useful component. There can be no doubt about how much we and others in advanced industrial countries will need the high-temperature reactor should there be problems with the operation of fast breeders, when they come. To some extent the high-temperature reactor represents a useful electrical fallback position, apart from its merits as a producer of direct heat.
I shall throw no doubt upon the fast breeder, though there are others who are worried about certain of its characteristics. Some concern, for instance, has been expressed by Sir Brian Flowers, who is Chairman of the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution. He is a very distinguished scientist. I am not saying whether he is right or wrong, but he has drawn attention to certain safety and contamination problems which can


arise with fast breeders. In the edition of The Guardian a few days ago he said, speaking of fast breeders:
The plutonium fuelled reactors seen by some energy strategists as the main source of energy in 30 years' time—may make them unacceptable for deployment on a large scale.
He is especially concerned about the fast breeder in its present form. I am not saying that Sir Brian Flowers is right, because many people connected with nuclear energy do not agree with him.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: While this matter is peripheral to the main subject of the debate, would it not be right to say that a number of distinguished commentators have taken Sir Brian Flowers' letter to the Prime Minister to indicate that the Government may well be right to go ahead with a prototype demonstration commercial fast reactor, but that if they do they should do so on the terms of the recommendations set out in the letter? Therefore, so far from being a letter advising against the reactor, it is a letter more concerned to point out the necessary safeguards to ensure that it will operate safely.

Mr. Palmer: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for putting the matter in its proper perspective. However, whatever faith we have in the fast breeder—certainly eventually it will be essential—if there are problems, the high-temperature reactor is perhaps a useful fallback for electricity generation. That argument has been put forward for a long time, whatever its strength.
Finally I beg my hon. Friend to impress on our right hon. Friend that in this matter Britain should come out from behind the curtain. We need a joint constructive Anglo-German approach.
It is suggested that if finance is the problem, the Americans would probably be prepared to give considerable assistance. They have been working themselves on high-temperature reactor technology through Gulf Atomics. I do not think that it has been very successful. One problem is that the Americans tend to leave too much of this kind of research to private capital. When private capital cannot see a fairly immediate return, it is not always so enthusiastic. Therefore, the Americans—this could be to our advantage—may look to Europe with its

State systems of nuclear research and construction, and I do not think that they will need a lot of persuading to come and put their money in, if necessary. But we cannot expect the United States Government to assist in this way if the two principal European countries concerned—the United Kingdom and Germany—cannot achieve unity. It would be absurd. Therefore, I suggest—constructively, I hope—that my hon. Friend should put this matter to his right hon. Friend.
At heart, I doubt whether money is the real difficulty. If so, there are other ways round the problem. I suspect that the trouble is lack of understanding in the Department of Energy that our future lies with new, not old, technologies.
We could almost say that motor car manufacture is fast becoming an old technology. We may find that in a few years, whatever efforts advanced industrial countries may make, it will be cheaper for the world to manufacture motor cars in other countries, some of which are at the moment covered with jungle. It may be that the West's already developed technology can be used and applied more cheaply in other countries than we in the West can afford, with our higher standard of living.
This country's future lies in keeping ahead all the time, technologically. We should not use for too long what is well known. We should pursue technology into new places and beyond new frontiers. That is the true industrial future of the United Kingdom, but I am fast beginning to doubt whether that is understood at all in the Department of Energy. If I am wrong in the case of the high-temperature reactor, no doubt my hon. Friend will indicate by his answer today.

7.4 p.m.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: The hon. Member for Bristol, North-East (Mr. Palmer) has performed a valuable service in providing us with an opportunity to debate this important issue tonight. At times I thought that I detected some difficulty on his part in finding words that would aptly describe his sense of indignation about this matter without at the same time giving undue offence to the Undersecretary of State. I think that he was too kind. What he has told us is a very


sad story of Government contradiction, prevarication and downright muddle over the extension of the Dragon reactor project. It now seems almost inevitable that the project, which has been and could be of great value to a European energy policy, should now come to an end with the loss of 300 jobs and other unfortunate consequences.
I say "almost inevitable", because I believe there is, even now, time, if there were the will, for the British Government, in conjunction with the other Governments involved, to save the project. It is important that the Government should make and be seen to make some effort to do that if they are to begin to live down the reputation that they are gaining of being an unreliable partner for our European colleagues in international energy projects.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the earlier attitude of the electricity authorities, as disclosed to the Select Committee. It was not only the electricity authorities that took the view, only a few months ago, that the high-temperature reactor technology was important. The previous Secretary of State for Energy—the present Secretary of State for Industry—in his statement to the House on 10th July 1974 said:
The high temperature reactor has considerable potential and
—I ask the House to mark the words—
I am asking the nuclear organisations to pursue further the prospects of participating in its international development in which our experience of gas-cooled technology will be of great value."—[Official Report, 10th July 1971; Vol. 876, c. 1358.]
What a change there is here when the Government appear to have been bending most of their efforts to ensure that the only effective international project on high-temperature reactor technology should be brought to an end. Furthermore, the right hon. Gentleman was well advised to have taken the view at that time. The Report of the Nuclear Power Advisory Board, on page 9, states that
There is general agreement that the HTR has the greatest potential among thermal reactor systems but that it could not be sufficiently proven for series ordering in the UK before the early to mid-1980s.
I stress,
the greatest potential among thermal reactor systems".

Now, almost at the end of the road, we are faced with the Government's decision to kill the only project in this country in that sphere.
I do not regard the main potential of high temperature reactor technology as being electricity generation, though the direct cycle possibilities offer some exciting prospects. There is a lot of work to be done. It is in the area of process heat—providing heat for the steel industry, for the chemical industry, for hydrogen manufacture and a whole range of projects—where the gas temperatures that the HTR technology can produce will be of the utmost value.
It is now clear that the Government's attitude to this project has become highly equivocal, if not downright contradictory. When the extension beyond the present five-year period was discussed—discussions began in April this year—the only United Kingdom offer on the table was that the project should end in March 1976 and the only question was how the costs would be snared up to the termination date. At that time there was no interest by the United Kingdom Government in continuing Dragon. Our partners in the Dragon project were, however, looking for an extension, because they at least recognised its value. Indeed, they believed that it would be easier to get funds for an extension than for the expenditure necessary to wind it up.
The question was referred to the Community to see whether some form of agreement could be reached involving the Community—because Dragon is at present an OECD project. In the Community the matter was referred to the Atomic Affairs Group—the Groupe des Questions Atomiques. But every time other members of the Community sought to raise this issue, during the spring and summer, they were baulked by the United Kingdom Government, who repeatedly said that they were not ready to discuss Community participation.
In August, the matter came out into the open. As the hon. Member for Bristol, North-East rightly said, the staff wrote to a number of hon. Members and drew the matter to our attention. On 16th September I met a deputation of staff and learned the whole story at first hand. I had earlier written to the Secretary of State, and on 16th September the Secretary of State replied to me; his letter


was in fairly blunt, uncompromising terms indicating that the United Kingdom was refusing to be involved in any extension at all. I quote just one paragraph from his letter:
Although Dragon yields a gain to our balance of payments an extension would nevertheless involve us in further substantial net expenditure. A great deal of time and money will be needed to realise, on a commercial scale, the potential advantages of the HTR; it is unrealistic to regard Dragon as any form of cheap insurance for the present United Kingdom nuclear power programme.
Even while he was writing that letter there were leaks from his Department to the effect that perhaps that was not the last word. It was thought perhaps there might be a chance that the United Kingdom would be willing to see an extension of the project, although with a substantially smaller United Kingdom contribution. That is the course which I would urge even now upon the Government. I recognise that we cannot go on bearing such a large share of the project and that a smaller share is necessary, but the answer is not to kill it.
The Secretary of State on 19th September confirmed to his European colleagues that this was what he was now prepared to consider. I will read briefly from my reply to the Secretary of State on 22nd September because it sets out very clearly my view as it was then and as it is now.
My own view is that HTR represents a project of potential economic value in its own right. It is not an alternative to breeders.
—and here I disagree with the hon. Member for Bristol, North-East. It is not a stand-by in the event of difficulties with thermal reactors, because the time scales are wrong.
Its merits come under two heads:—(a) HTR technology is potentially of great value as a source of heat for process industries, (b) it is enormously important to obtain a capacity in high temperature gas technology so that the gas-coled breeder reactor system can be considered as a possible variant to the liquid metal coolant system. We do not have to pay a great deal as our contribution to Dragon, even so, I would not be against our negotiating a higher share for the Germans or the French. I would be very distressed indeed if we were to abandon it altogether.
By that time the Dragon project was in dire financial straits. It was beginning to run out of money, even to effect a proper rundown of the system, so that the

Secretary of State's offer to consider extension was given an exceedingly short time limit for acceptance. Signor Spinelli of the Commission said that the offer came very late and that members of the Commission must be given more time. He asked for a year's extension to be agreed with the possibility of a further four years if that could be negotiated. The Secretary of State considered the matter and said he could envisage only a three-month extension. On 6th October he wrote to me and said:
We certainly would not wish to see the project brought to an end if our other partners wish to continue to work at Winfrith under a new financial regime … we have told them we are prepared to provide support to give them more time to formulate alternative arrange ments.
He said we would be able to bear the cost until June 1976 if our partners would do likewise.
Then came the crucial sentence:
We have made this offer conditional upon its acceptance by 30th November at the latest given that the de-secondment notices would take effect on 6th December.
The Under-Secretary of State made a public statement at Basle on 7th October confirming what I have just read to the House. It was therefore necessary to find new funding by 30th November, the date by which this offer had to be accepted. It was therefore necessary to find new funding and to agree to acceptance of the offer by 30th November. This was far too sudden. By now it was apparent that the Americans were interested and that they would need time to consider their position.
On 13th October I tried to raise the matter in the House, but for reasons which will be understood I was unsuccessful. The matter was then referred to the Committee of Permanent Representatives of the Commission to see whether they could find some basis on which an extension could be negotiated. The Germans suggested that there should be a nine-months' extension of the project until December 1976 to allow time to see whether there could be a four or five-year continuation. This was then accepted by the United Kingdom Government, but on two conditions—first, that any new basis would be retroactive to 31st March 1976. That seemed a reasonable condition. They also went on to say that there must be a clear indication of support for the new


basis by 31st March 1976 and that without any such clear indication the project must close on 30th June 1976. For a moment, therefore, it looked as if there might be a possibility of saving the project, for this offer was welcomed by COREPER as a basis of negotiation. Clarification of the first condition was requested and the matter was referred back to the Groupe des Questions Atomiques.
However, before the meeting of the GQA, there was another shift in the United Kingdom attitude. There was an informal meeting attended by an official from the Department of Energy, Dr. Pictet, the Chairman of the Dragon Board of Management, Sr. de Bacci, of the EEC Commission, and Dr. Shepherd, the Manager of the Dragon project. Although the Department of Energy official made assuring and soothing noises that the first condition was no more than a longstop and that it was not to be interpreted rigidly, he dropped another bombshell and made it clear that any new basis of negotiation must involve no separate United Kingdom support at all. He said the only contribution the Government were prepared to make was through their share as a member of the Community.
When it got to the Groupe des Questions Atomiques, the situation was already very near to disaster for it had to be faced that the United Kingdom was not prepared to put any separate contribution at all into the project.
There was no attempt at that meeting of the group by the United Kingdom representative to try to keep the project alive. Indeed, the impression I have been given, as the impression held by those at the meeting, was that the United Kingdom representative at that meeting of the group was a hatchet man sent to cut the project down and kill it.
That matter was finally reported back to COREPER on 5th December. The German ambassador was faced with the prospect of no United Kingdom contribution and suggested a nine-months' extension to 31st December. After much argument it was conceded that there was no unanimous support and that therefore the Community could not become involved.
The following week came the first indication of real American interest. The Energy Research and Development Authority wanted more time to consider. I quote excerpts from the telegram sent to Dr. Shepherd, the Chief Executive of Dragon.
We sincerely hope means can be found to continue Dragon project because of the unique capabilities of the reactor for testing of gas cooled reactor fuels. The US gas cooled reactor program is now undergoing re-examination because of the recent changes in the industrial situation. ERDA does wish to continue gas cooled reactor program, particularly for the advanced concepts.
Then,
We believe the unique fuel testing capabilities would be valuable in fuel development and will seriously consider the use of the reactor as part of our future program. Any possible US support could not be decided by March 1976. We would need a longer time to develop a program and obtain necessary budget support. Thus a nine month extension of the project would make this feasible whereas a three month extension would not.
Whereas earlier the Government had been prepared to consider a nine-month extension, by the time it got back to COREPER they were unable to agree that.
Another American initiative came from Dr. Kramish, the American science counsellor at the Paris Embassy, who maintains close connections with the International Energy Agency. He indicated an interest and suggested that the Americans might be prepared to offer up to $2 million as support for Dragon via the IEA.
Faced with this situation, renewed efforts were made to get the project once again resurrected and brought before the Council of Ministers. They were due to have a meeting on 15th December. At first there was no readiness even to have the matter on the agenda, but, as the hon. Member for Bristol, North-East said, Dr. Pictet eventually persuaded the Germans to put it on the agenda and this was done at a late hour last Friday—

The Under-Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. Alex Eadie): indicated dissent—

Mr. Jenkin: The Under-Secretary shakes his head, but he has much to answer for in this respect. He was the United Kingdom representative at that meeting of the Council of Ministers.

Mr. Eadie: I was shaking my head because I did not want the right hon. Gentleman to make statements which are not true. This matter was not on the agenda, and I was there.

Mr. Jenkin: That is a very interesting point. My information was—and I can check this again today—that the matter was on the agenda under "any other business", and was an invitation to the Council of Ministers to take note of the COREPER report. We have been unable to find out, in spite of inquiries to the German Ministry of Technology in Bonn, why the German representative at that meeting left before this item was reached.
The Under-Secretary says that it was not on the agenda in the form I have described it. It must therefore at some stage have been taken off, and we need to know therefore at whose instigation this was done and by whom it was taken off the agenda. What is clear is that at no time did the Under-Secretary make any attempt to have the matter put on the agenda or to raise it at the Council of Ministers.
However, still the matter would not lie down. The European Parliament debated it yesterday on the initiative of my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, West (Mr. Spicer), some of whose constituents are involved in the work at Winfrith. The European Parliament passed a resolution on the subject and this was dictated to me by phone from Strasbourg this afternoon. It says:
Having noted with concern the present intention to close down the Dragon Project by 31.3 1976, requests the Commission to present urgently proposals to the Council which will enable the continuation of the project until 30th September in order to allow for negotiations to take place with a view to ensuring the long-term future of the project.
That resolution was accepted without dissent by the European Parliament, although there were some abstentions.

Mr. Palmer: I take it that it had the support of the Socialist Group.

Mr. Jenkin: The hon. Member has made a valuable point. The resolution had the support of the Socialist Group, including the Labour Group in the European Parliament. The resolution now stands and the representative of the Commission who was present will undertake

to put it on the agenda for the Council of Ministers at the next meeting. This matter will therefore come back. The United Kingdom will have another opportunity to reconsider its attitude. There is still time to try to get the support which is evident from the Germans, provided it is not sought with the kind of pistol-at-the-head, dead-line attitude which was displayed earlier. There is, too, the chance of getting substantial support from the United States.
That is where the matter stands. At Winfrith the reactor is being closed down and mothballed. The staff are under notice of desecondment, and some will have to be dismissed. Tomorrow, the Germans arrive at Winfrith in order to put forward proposals for the analysis and writing up of the results which have been achieved. The Winfrith staff have worked out a £2 million programme to record the results of experiments in recent years. It does not see how it can ask the Germans to pay more than one-third of this sum, and it would be a double tragedy if as well as the work being called off there were to be no funds for analysing and processing the results for future use.
The Government have been guilty of very serious prevarication and of misleading their colleagues in this matter. They have shifted their ground repeatedly and they have made no effort to try to save the project. Their first ultimatum of 31st March was so brutal and abrupt as to be totally unacceptable. Their second ultimatum of 30th June was unrealistically short and gave no adequate time for the proper negotiation of new terms. During the spring and summer they actually prevented discussion of the matter in the Groupe des Questions Atomiques. The staff at Winfrith have every right to feel angry, disillusioned and let down, and it is not surprising that they have formed the belief that the Government were from the outset determined to kill the project and to scotch every attempt to salvage it.
There is another aspect of the matter. The hon. Member for Bristol, North-East said that the Government were inept in their international relations in connection with this project. One needs to ask how far the final decision of the Germans not to put the matter on the agenda on Monday or, if it was on the agenda, to leave the Council before the


matter was discussed, arose from sheer exasperation of the attitudes of the British Labour Government to the whole energy policy of the Community. They have had to suffer the Foreign Secretary's provocative bravado at Luxembourg, the Prime Minister's acrimonious correspondence with Herr Schmidt, and the row at Rome resulting in the stupid and futile climb-down by British Ministers. They have had to put up with, and they may have had it at present in their minds, with the revealing and shocking statement by the Secretary of State for Energy when he spoke at Bridgwater as reported in The Times last Saturday. He was actually boasting at being responsible for holding up the entire EEC energy policy and he said that
without opening old wounds, that pleases me no end.
That is a disgraceful and impudent statement of which the Secretary of State and the whole Government should be heartily ashamed. It would not in the least surprise me if it proved to be the last straw for the Germans over the Dragon project.
The whole issue goes further than that, however. This attitude by the Government may be imperilling other joint projects which are on the stocks or which may have the possibility of coming to Britain. There is the Joint European Torus project, which is concerned with very important long-term research into nuclear fusion. That will be a tragedy if it does not go to Culham in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Abingdon (Mr. Neave) where much of the work has been done.
An article in The Times by its distinguished science editor, Pearce Wright, said:
Government indecision over continuing to support an international nuclear research group at Winfrith, Dorset, has caused advisers to the EEC to reconsider proposals to build another European laboratory in Britain. The new centre would absorb most of the £250 million to be spent in Europe on fusion research over the next six or seven years.
Later, it said:
The European Commission's preference for the Italian rather than the British centre has been prompted by the Government attitude over the Dragon project at Winfrith.
From whatever point of view this matter is considered—that of the staff at Winfrith, that of the future of high temperature

technology, that of Britain's collaboration with our industrial partners in the Community, or that of long-term nuclear research—the Government's attitudes, and particularly their inaction at critical stages of the negotiations, have been utterly lamentable.
In future years, we shall bitterly regret having thrown away any chances of remaining a direct participator in a technology which, without doubt, has great promise for the future of energy generation. In a week, as the hon. Member reminded us, in which the Government are throwing away £162 million on trying to salvage a company that makes cars that no one wants to buy, they will have a great deal to answer for. I hope that the Under-Secretary will give us some undertaking that even at this last minute the Government will try to resurrect this project and keep it going.

7.31 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. Alex Eadie): I should like to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-East (Mr. Palmer) for raising this subject. I know from the correspondence that I have received that several hon. Members are concerned about this matter, and on behalf of the Government I welcome the opportunity to clear up any misunderstandings that may have arisen about the nature of the project, its recent history and the Government's attitude to its future.
The right hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Jenkin) expressed surprise at the way my hon. Friend opened this debate. My hon. Friend spoke constructively, although critically. The right hon. Gentleman was surprised that he did not talk in the same terms as the right hon. Gentleman himself. But the right hon. Gentleman always seems to prefer to support foreign Governments rather than his own. I propose to try to show that it would be better for the nation's interests if he started to speak for Britain for a change, rather than for foreign countries.
The OECD's Dragon project, an experimental high-temperature reactor sited at the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority's establishment at Winfrith, has been a successful international venture. Since its inception in 1959, it has been extended five times. The current


agreement between the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority, the European Communities, Sweden, Switzerland and Austria expires on 31st March 1976.
As hon. Members are aware, the Government in their White Paper of July 1974 accepted the advice of the NPAB that we would not have the resources for a substantial effort on HTR while we were launching and completing SGHWR and completing the AGRs. But we did ask the nuclear organisations to pursue further the prospects of participation in international development of HTR.
In April this year the Board of Management of the Dragon project proposed that it should be extended for a further five years. Under the present agreement the partners should have reached a decision on any further extension by the end of June. It would not have been appropriate for the United Kingdom to agree to participate in an extension of this length before the completion of the review by the nuclear organisations. But we were even then aware of the risk that exhaustion of funds during the current extension might lead to a premature termination of the project before a decision on a further extension could be reached. It was for this reason that, in April, the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority had made it clear that it was ready to bear its share of the costs to prevent closure before 31st March 1976, if the other signatories could do likewise. Unfortunately, this arrangement was not acceptable to the other partners.
Although, as I have said, we were not able by the end of June to finalise our policy on the proposed extension, by September we had completed the necessary consultations with the nuclear industry, the Atomic Energy Authority, the electricity boards and the Trades Union Congress. All agreed that the benefit to the United Kingdom's nuclear programme of the proposed extension would not justify us in continuing to bear the substantial costs which we would incur as the largest single contributor to the project. Accordingly, looked at from the standpoint of our own nuclear reactor policies, the Government were not in favour of a further extension of the project. However, we were conscious of our special position as the host country and did not wish to see the project

brought to an end if the other signatories wished to continue work at Winfrith under a new financial regime.
In the meantime, inflation was causing the project to run out of money. The Board of Management advised that funds would no longer be adequate to run the project until its scheduled completion on 31st March 1976. Indeed, seconded staff would have to return to their parent laboratories from 6th December onwards. They were entitled to three months' notice of this, which meant that issue of desecondment notices could not be postponed beyond 6th September.
During September, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy discussed the position with other European Ministers and with the interested Commissioners in Brussels and decided that we should try to give our partners more time to make new arrangements to continue the project if they wished to do so. We therefore informed them on 30th September that we were prepared to provide new money, contributing our present share of the costs to the end of June 1976 if they would do likewise. Because desecondment had to take effect on 6th December if this offer was not accepted, we made it conditional upon acceptance by 30th November.
We received no formal response to this offer, but in course of discussion in Brussels our German partners made a counter-proposal for an extension to 31st December 1976. We did not see the need for the additional six months they proposed. We thought that at least the principles of any new financial arrangements should be clear by the end of March. If nothing were then in prospect, there would still be time to give three months' notice of closure in June. To go on till September before taking a decision, which might have been for closure in December, seemed to us to be unnecessarily prolonging the period of uncertainty for the staff, and the staff must be considered. Nevertheless, we were anxious that no real opportunity for extension should be missed.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: rose—

Mr. Eadie: The right hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford made many allegations and will have to listen to the facts whether he likes it or not.


This is a reply to the allegations that he has made.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: Although I treat with the contempt it deserves the Minister's original imputation against my patriotism, it comes ill from him to say that all this was done in the interests of the staff. Let him go to Winfrith and talk to them to find out what they are saying.

Mr. Eadie: I shall retaliate in the way the right hon. Gentleman has done. He continually quoted documents of other countries. He has used every opportunity during this debate to deride the British Government and was quoting the views of foreign Governments to supplement his argument. I was not challenging his patriotism; I was challenging his political judgment. I hope that he will not giggle, because what I am saying to him is perfectly serious. He is a big boy and if he dishes it out it will be given back to him.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: You are a silly man. If I may say so, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I did not mean you.

Mr. Eadie: The right hon. Gentleman is being rather silly because he should know that in political debates if he dishes it out he will be required to take it like someone who is a mature politician.
Accordingly, after discussions in London among my officials, the chairman of the Dragon Board of Management, the chief executive of the Project, and representatives of the Federal Republic of Germany, the Commission and the UKAEA, we put forward a compromise proposal. We agreed to accept the German proposal for a nine-month extension, subject to the condition that if by March 1976 there was no clear prospect of new financial arrangements in view, the termination arrangements should be put in hand. In addition, we asked that if the project continued under a new financial regime this should be made retrospective to 1st April 1976. Both these conditions had been discussed at the London meeting.
All the participants had welcomed them as constructive and believed that they should be acceptable.
We were, therefore, very disappointed to have our proposals rejected when we presented them formally to the Committee of Permanent Representatives in Brussels.
However, the soundings we have taken indicate that none of our partners is prepared to contemplate paying substantially more towards the project than at present, even though some have a very much greater current interest in the high-temperature reactor than has the United Kingdom.

Mr. Palmer: Reference has been made to figures. Could we know the extent of the amount involved and just how far they are a burden compared with everything else in the United Kingdom's economy?

Mr. Eadie: I have incorporated that information into my speech and I shall come to it.
Nor does the interest expressed by the United States appear to be on a sufficient scale to enable the project to continue We understand that United States' participation, if it could be obtained, would be more likely to take the form of a contract for work than agreement to become a signatory to the Dragon agreement.
I turn now to the financial aspects of the project. The United Kingdom is the largest single contributor to the Dragon project and bears 48 per cent. of the costs. The remainder is shared among the other eight members of the EEC, together with Sweden, Switzerland and Austria.
The total United Kingdom contribution to the project in financial years 1959–60 to 1975–76 has been about £20·7 million. In addition, the UKAEA has provided services costing £25·5million, the whole of which has been recovered as income from the project. To have participated in the five-year extension proposed in April would have cost the United Kingdom a further £13·5 million. It has been put to me that the Dragon yields this country a balance of payments advantage of £1 million a year. This is true but it does not alter the commitment we have to make to the project in staff and resources.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: The hon. Gentleman has said that a figure of £13·5 million would be the cost. Does that assume


any reduction in the British share from its current percentage of 48 per cent? Does it assume any contribution from the Americans, as is indicated in the telegram from ERDA, which I have read to the House?

Mr. Eadie: I said that the £13·5 million was based on current considerations but I will check the project and if I am wrong I will write to the right hon. Gentleman.
Hon. Members may like to know that the cost to the United Kingdom of the offer we made in September to allow continuation until 30th June would have been £1·5 million. To go on until December, as we were willing to do subject to the conditions I have mentioned, would have cost us a further £800,000.

Mr. Palmer: My hon. Friend must agree that these are not great amounts in terms of public expenditure these days.

Mr. Eadie: It is not a question whether I agree. My hon. Friend asked for the figures and the facts and I propose to give them to him. The question of his judgment on facts and figures will no doubt be taken into account.
Hon. Members are understandably concerned about the implications of closure for the staff who have contributed so much to the success of the project over the last 15 years. Many have been seconded to the project by their parent laboratories in the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority or overseas, to which they will now return.
The UKAEA has undertaken that there will be no compulsory redundancies of its staff as a result of the closure of the project and will discuss with staff representatives the ways in which their skills and experience can be employed. The right hon. Gentleman is aware that we have already met representatives on this matter.
The UKAEA also assures me that the closure of the project will not jeopardise the future of its Winfrith establishment. I want to emphasise that because it is important. In addition, the project employs around 50 agency staff. They are employed, for example, as draftsmen, calculation assistants and typists. The UKAEA cannot give a categorical assurance about their continued employment.

This is primarily a matter for the contractors as they are agency staff. However, the director of Winfrith has indicated that he will give these agency staff priority in consideration for any vacancies at Winfrith for which they may be suitable. Such vacancies will be limited by the need to reabsorb the Authority staff who have been working with the Dragon project.
I fully appreciate the potential advantages of the HTR, particularly as a source of process heat which might be applied to steelmaking or gasification of coal. But there has been no change in our judgment about our nuclear priorities or about the HTR since last year's White Paper. We cannot afford to do everything. We must recognise that the current status and timescale for commercial development of the HTR in the countries which have the lead has slipped back since then. In particular General Atomic, the Gulf/Shell company with the world lead in HTR, has just bought itself out of the last of its utility contracts in the United States of America.
I have already referred to the considerable achievements of the Dragon project. But we have to recognise that Dragon is an experimental reactor; it is in no sense a prototype and continuing with it would not have given us a commercial capability.
Some fears have been expressed that termination of the Dragon project may affect the views of our partners in the European Communities on the siting of JET or any other Community project in the United Kingdom. Why should this be so? We did not close the Dragon project. [Interruption.]
I turn to answer the right hon. Gentleman direct. I hope he will accept what I say. I attended the meeting of the Council of Ministers, to which he referred. I emphasise that Dragon was not on the agenda, nor was it discussed. We made a very reasonable offer which we believe should have been accepted. It was rejected at ambassador level. The ambassadors had made no recommendation to the Council for discussion on the subject. As I was there, I hope that at least my hon. Friend will accept that what I am saying is a fact.

Mr. Palmer: indicated assent.

Mr. Eadie: It was not discussed, nor was it on the agenda. I hope that on reflection the right hon. Gentleman will accept that. He must accept what I am saying. I was there.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: Of course, if the hon. Gentleman says that, I accept it, and I recognise that, therefore, the Press and many of the staff at Winfrith were entirely misinformed when they said on Friday that it was on the agenda. I accept what the Minister says.

Mr. Eadie: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman.
Hon. Members will wish to know the current status of the Dragon. Under the terms of the Dragon agreement the facilities revert to the United Kingdom at zero cost. The reactor has been defuelled and work is being undertaken to leave it in a safe condition. Thereafter, short-term maintenance costs are estimated by the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority at about £60,000 per annum. Arrangements for more permanent disposal of the reactor, ancillary plant and buildings and so on, are now being considered. The Authority expects to use some of these for other reactor research and development work, including work on the SGHWR and the fast reactor.
My hon. Friend has performed a very valuable service in initiating this debate because it has given the Government the opportunity to put forward their view. Despite the fact that my hon. Friend made a fair case in his criticisms of the Government, the opportunity has been given to put the Government's point of view. I have described to him what happened at the meeting of Ministers which I attended in Brussels. My hon. Friend raised the question of the fast breeder reactor and Sir Brian Flowers' comment on this subject. I think that my hon. Friend must agree with me that the statement made by Sir Brian Flowers must be considered, but he would also want me to make clear—as I think the right hon. Gentleman, in his intervention, wanted to make clear—that it was not a question of condemnation as such of the fast breeder reactor route, but that what was being suggested was that rather than go commercial there should be consideration of a further prototype, before we developed on the commercial level.

It is necessary to make that point in the debate because many people have shown great interest in nuclear power and the various roads that we should pursue.
My hon. Friend raised the question about a joint constructive Anglo-German approach. I think he will recollect that I did some work on this in order to try to further it. I was responsible earlier—I think it was this year—for a meeting with Herr Matthöfer, a Minister in the German Government. There were discussions in relation to technological collaboration. My hon. Friend has heard me say very often in this House that I am all in favour of technological co-operation throughout the world with partners and allies who wish to participate. I have always argued that it is futile and stupid that we should do work in duplication of one another.
As a matter of fact, at the invitation of Herr Matthöfer I went to West Germany and visited the HTR establishment. I also went down a pit in the Ruhr with him. I think that it was the first time in history that two Ministers had been down a pit in the Ruhr.
My hon. Friend introduced this constructive note in his speech. There is an interesting constructive collaboration between the nations and there have been discussions in relation to it. Therefore, I hope that he will agree that, whatever he may feel about it, there has been no political ineptitude on the part of the Department of Energy, and that we have taken a constructive, realistic decision based on a policy of nuclear power under which we really cannot do everything.
I want to assure my hon. Friend that we are always looking for constructive relationships with other nations to pursue technological collaboration. I should like to hope that, at least during the period in which I am at the Department, I may have the privilege from time to time of coming to the Dispatch Box and intimating to the House that joint technological collaborative arrangements have been made with other friendly countries.
I hope that the House will agree that I have tried as best I could to give a constructive answer to the points made during the debate. On reflection, perhaps right hon. and hon. Members will realise that the Government had a very good case when handling this whole issue.

Orders of the Day — WAR WIDOWS' PENSIONS

7.56 p.m.

Mr. Graham Page: I quote from a letter recently written by a widow whose husband died in the Second World War. She says,
King George VI wrote the following to me after my husband had been shot down in flames: 'We pray that your country's gratitude for a life so nobly given in its service may bring you some measure of consolation'.
In practical terms, the country's gratitude is measured by the fact that that Second World War widow is granted, in pension, half—sometimes one-third—of the amount granted to a widow whose husband has been killed during the past two and a half years, particularly in Ulster.
The Second World War widow is receiving a pension that is one-third of the pension paid to her counterpart in Germany. I quote again, this time from an address given at a service in the Crypt of this very Palace of Westminster, last May:
The widows of the men that were buried in the field-grey uniform of the Third Reich live, honoured and respected, with a pension of the equivalent of £50 a week—and we do not grudge them their security. But the widows of the men who died in khaki live in penury when they have no means of their own—on £13 a week. This is the measure and the price of the faith we kept.
That is a pretty degrading situation. It shows a strange obsession of the Treasury, under Government after Government in this country, to discriminate against the war widows of the 1914–18 War and of the 1939–45 War. I know that the sum of £13 a week that I mentioned was increase to £17·50 last month, but it still remains less than half of that which the Government found it right to award to the widows of soldiers killed in Northern Ireland.
I have more than once had the honour of calling the attention of the House to what I have called unfair discrimination against the war widows of the First World War and the Second World War in the matter of their pensions. Between the woman who is left single by losing her husband in a war and the man or woman who is disabled by losing a limb in that war there is the discrimination that widows' pensions are taxed and disability

allowances are tax-free. This is so ridiculous an anomaly that one wonders why it has continued for so long.
I do not intend to ask the House to consider taxation relief for war widows. I should be out of order in doing so, because legislation would be needed. But an increase in war widows' pensions is made by Royal Warrant, without legislation. To show how justified I am in asking for an increase in pensions for First and Second World War widows, I point out that after tax the 17·20 a week, their basis pension, is £15·73; that we are the only one of the Old Commonwealth countries that taxes war widows' pensions; that only a few of the emerging countries of the Commonwealth tax their pensions; that we are in the minority among countries in Europe to tax war widows' pensions; and that we are the only Summit nation—I include America, Russia, Japan, and so on—to tax such pensions.
Those facts were recognised in May 1973, when it was decided that the death of a Service man thereafter would result in a pension that is now about £38 a week. Therefore, the pension for the widow who lost her husband in Europe, the Middle East or the Far East is less than half that for the widow who loses her husband in Northern Ireland. The new figure is the right one. The war widows of the First and Second World Wars should have their pension brought up to that now granted to those good women who are unfortunately deprived of their husbands by death in Ulster. That pension should be granted irrespective of the date or place of the Service man husband's death on service.
Even though there could have been a serious breakdown in morale among men serving in Ulster, and perhaps a grave threat to recruitment—because Service men in Ulster faced death with the knowledge that, if it came, their wives would not receive a pension at a reasonable subsistence level—it seems to me the height of inhumane and cynical audacity to leave the First and Second World War widows in the cold when we made the necessary increase in pensions for the Ulster disturbance widows.
At its annual conference on 23rd October, the National Council of Women


unanimously passed the following resolution:
The National Council of Women of Great Britain in Conference assembled, calls upon H. M. Government to improve the Pension income of all War Widows and bring them into line with the greatly improved attributable benefits awarded to widows whose husbands served in the Armed Forces after 31st March 1973.
There is an Early-Day Motion on the Order Paper in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Mrs. Chalker), and signed by 64 other right hon. and hon. Members, saying:
That this House calls on the Government urgently to re-examine the position of war widows and their dependants and to take every step to alleviate the financial difficulties they face and to give them a comparable pension right with war widows in the EEC and Commonwealth countries.
I am told that various regiments are organising petitions on the same lines. The House will have noticed that that Early-Day Motion is headed:
Financial Difficulties of War Widows".
The financial hardships are severe.
The Government were recently asked in another place how many war widows receiving pension were on supplementary benefit. Lord Wells-Pestell replied:
The number of war widows receiving supplementary benefit decreased from 9,000 in 1973 to about 5,000 at the end of 1974."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 12th June 1975; Vol. 361, c. 485.]
I cannot help feeling utterly ashamed that 5,000 women whose husbands made the great sacrifice of their lives in fighting for this country now have to plead for supplementary benefit because their pensions are too small to provide them with a proper existence. I suspect that they are the older ones, unable to work to supplement their meagre pensions.
I acknowledge the recently-introduced help for older war widows with the £l·70 a week increase when they reach the age of 65 and the £3·40 a week increase at 70. But they remain the Cinderellas in the war pension scheme.
How many war widows are receiving pensions? The Government seem to be in some doubt about that. When he was asked on 12th June, the noble Lord said:
There are about 92,000 war widows and the number on supplementary benefit represents, if my calculations are correct, less than 5 per cent."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 12th June 1975; Vol. 361, c. 486.]

In a debate in this House on the Finance Bill, I said that one could accommodate in Wembley Stadium all the war widows receiving pensions I was not far wrong on the figure, but it seems to have been reduced since June, perhaps through death. One cannot help feeling that there is a great deal of stalling by the Treasury, in the hope that the worry about war widows' pensions will go away, because eventually they will all die. A Minister has told this House that:
On 4th April 1975, the most recent date for which information is available, the number was 88,400."—[Official Report, 4th August 1975 Vol. 897, c. 361
It had dropped considerably in two months. That answer went on to reveal that the estimated cost of war widows' pensions for 1975–76 will be £86½ million. That is to cover the 88,400 war widows. I presume that that sum includes those who are receiving the very much higher pensions stemming from deaths in Ulster.
I gather that of the total of 88,400 widows now receiving pensions there are about 22,000 widows from the Kaiser's war and about 66,000 from Hitler's war. The cost of increasing their pensions to the level received by the widows of Service men killed in Ulster was said in another place to be £250 million a Year. That must be wrong. It the total cost of the war widows' pensions is £86½ million, how could the cost of increasing their pensions to the level awarded to widows who have been bereaved by the disturbance in Ulster amount to £250 million? I cannot think how Lord Wells-Pestell, on behalf of the Government, could have given that erroneous and misleading figure.
When we consider the amount that is clawed back by the Government in tax, I would have thought that to increase the First and Second World War pensions to the level now being given in pensions to the Ulster widows would cost between £25 million and £30 million. That is my own estimate, but the Minister may be able to give some indication of the figure involved.
It is true that the Ulster widows receive up to double the pension that is received by First and Second World War widows. The noble Lord made great play of that fact in an answer given on 12th June. He said that to give war widows the


same provision as that given under the Armed Forces Pension Scheme would cost an additional £250 million a year. That is the figure which I have already given to the House. It is so ridiculous that it should never have been stated.
The Ulster widows' pensions are topped up by the Armed Forces Pension Scheme. That is an occupational pension scheme run by the Ministry of Defence. To a widow it is irrelevant whether she receives her pension from one Department or two Departments. It is nonsense to use the argument that those who have suffered bereavement in the Ulster disturbance are entitled to an occupational pension from the Ministry of Defence and that those wives who lost their husbands in earlier years, whether in prisoner of war camps in Japan or in action in the Middle East, France, Germany, or wherever, cannot receive the same sort of pension because for some strange reason they are entitled only to a pension from the Department of Health and Social Security. I do not understand the logic of that.
What is the logic of that sort of principle? It is a crazy principle. Is there any principle in logic, in economics, in psychology or in administrative convenience or inconvenience, that widows, and particularly older widows, should be deprived by this strange administrative business of the pension funds that come from two Departments?
The difference between the Kaiser and the Hitler widows, as against the Ulster widows, emerged from an earlier answer in another place. Perhaps the answer is a little out of date, but the ratio remains the same. It emerged that a widow who lost her husband in 1944 was receiving £680 per annum, while a widow who lost her husband in 1975 was receiving £1,850 per annum—about three times as much. Where is the logic in that? To the recipients it is irrelevant which Government Departments distribute the pensions. There seems to be a grand game of buck-passing between the two Departments.
I have refrained from going into the details of other anomalies, for example, between the First World War widow and the Second World War widow or between those whose husbands died before or after 1950. The situation is chaotic. In the chaos those who were widowed in the past are suffering from the ingratitude not

of the public but of the public service. The idea would seem to be that it is not necessary to get their good will, because their husbands are already dead. It seems that they are ignored in the real pension reforms.
The Government—and I include previous Governments—have disregarded the fate of the war widows. Governments have made a few cosmetic changes but we have now reached the stage when the remaining war widows—and there are only 88,400—should be given pensions equivalent to those which we have found necessary, wise and prudent to give to the recent widows who have lost their husbands in the Ulster disturbance.
Both old and new widows are living in and having to exist in the same world. We should bring the older widows' pensions to the same level as the Ulster widows' pensions. I hope that the Minister will give us some hope and some assurance that the plight of the First World War and Second World War widows is recognised and that the Government will now do something about their position.

8.18 p.m.

Mr. Alan Clark: Without any disrespect to my colleagues, or with only minimal disrespect, I draw the attention of the House and, through the Official Report, the attention of the public to the unusually sparse attendance in the House during a debate on a subject which involves one of the most deserving sections of the community. I am afraid that it illustrates the truth of something of which we are constantly reminded but which none the less is unwelcome—namely, that there is no such thing as gratitude in politics. It seems that the attendance that the House enjoys is merely an indicator of the amount of economic or social muscle that can be deplored in given circumstances. In the past two years I have noticed how the House seems to fill only to witness the intermittent gladiatorial contests which we all enjoy or to discuss its own privileges or registers, whatever the case may be.
It may well be thought by many outside that we are neglecting one of our prime duties—namely, to scrutinise and protect the interests of particular sections of the community. In this case those


interests are gravely neglected or overlooked. I recognise that all Governments share a measure of responsibility. But I fear that the level of complacency is not being reduced. I quote as an example a Written Answer given by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury regarding certain categories of war widow who were being taxed. He said:
This is an indication of the much-needed improvement in living standards which the Government have secured for this section of the community."—[Official Report, 12th November 1975; Vol. 899, c. 796]
That was a curious comment affecting the war widow who suddenly finds herself subjected to a tax demand reducing the actual level of what she believes to be due to her. Indeed, she must pay the sum due by four instalments a year. One can imagine her bewilderment when she finds that, far from the sum she was expecting to receive, the figure is reduced because of the payment of tax at quarterly intervals.
There is no doubt that a section of the community to which the House should devote much more attention—and I hope that the Minister this evening will give them some encouragement—comprises the widows of Service men who lost their lives in the Second World War. But the widows who are least able to look after themselves are the widows of Service men who died in the First World War.
In the other place a figure of £250 million was quoted as being the cost of extending the scheme retrospectively to these two groups. Surely that figure must have been inflated. It has an unhappy look about it since it is such a round figure. Many of the sums we hear about these days are nice round figures—such as £100 million, £200 million or £250 million. They are rounded off in the most suspicious way. Money could not be spent on a more deserving and helpless section of the community. It is certainly very different from the expenditure of a great deal of money to assist motor car workers in some distant part of the United Kingdom threatened by a separatist movement. I believe that a figure of £250 million, £200 million, or whatever it may be, as a sum for this category of persons is false and deceptive. The figure is being written down all the time.
Regrettably, many widows are now in the evening of their lives. The number of widows in the category to which I refer must be declining. Certainly on an actuarial basis we must assume that the number of First World War widows will be whittled down to an almost nil figure within the next five or 10 years. Therefore, it seems an act of meanness to deny them, in the closing years of their lives and at a time of constantly rising prices and a deteriorating standard of living, what should be their due. The same argument applies to Second World War widows.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) spoke of the humiliation felt by British war widows when they know that widows of our former enemies are paid three or four times as much as they are paid. We know from the supplementary benefit figures that many of our nation's Service widows are near destitute. The House must concern itself with this subject. I hope that the Minister will be able to give us encouragement and will not fall back on complacent answers such as that which I outlined from the Financial Secretary.

8.25 p.m.

Mr. Hamish Watt: I congratulate the right hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) on his foresight and determination in selecting this subject for debate tonight. I also praise him on his luck in having drawn so high a place in the Ballot.
On this last night of Parliament in 1975 it is proper that we should look back on the year that has passed. Perhaps the most important event was the irrevocable decision taken by the nation that we should remain members of the EEC. The Government and the country as a whole in taking that decision decided to take the benefits as well as the difficulties flowing from our membership of that partnership. If we are to be full partners in the Common Market, surely we should seek to equate our treatment of our people with the treatment meted out by our counterparts in the other Common Market countries.
In comparison with their EEC counterparts the situation of the British war widow is extremely bad. In Germany—our one-time enemy—the war widows receive adequate tax-free pensions to


enable them to live comfortably without working. In the Netherlands war widows are allowed £52 per week, although they pay tax on that sum. In France the war widow's pension is tax-free and the French Government are so generous that they even allow a war widow who has remarried to retain part of her pension.

Mr. Sydney Bidwell: I apologise for coming into the debate after it has started, but I do not intend to speak. I merely wish to express sympathy with what has been said so far. Does the hon. Gentleman understand that even if a German war widow is domiciled in Britain her pension is still tax-free?

Mr. Watt: I am grateful for that intervention and I understand that that is the case. It highlights the anomalies that am seeking to bring out in my remarks.
It must be said that many of the war widows are my contemporaries and indeed my friends. I remember the jubilation and great hopes of many people who married in the early war years. They were proud to be Service men's wives. Over the years I have seen some of the girls I knew grow a little older, as we have all grown older. However, those women who are now widows have, perhaps unlike many of us, grown bitter at what has happened. As the years have passed they have seen their position constantly weakened in comparison with other sections of the community. Their situation has become increasingly worse. Many have had to go out to work to be able to bring up their families.
Many of the people where I live do not want to hang around the place doing nothing. They want to contribute to society. But they are particularly bitter when they find that the pension given to them by a grateful Government in return for the loss of their husbands is taxed by the same grateful Government. I add my weight and that of my party to the plea made by the right hon. Member for Crosby and others and ask the Government to open their heart at this time of the year. Let them give us some hope to take back to our constituencies—

The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Alfred Morris): Is the hon. Member aware of by how

much the war widows' pension has increased in the past two years? Can he give me the figure for the total increase in that period?

Mr. Watt: I am aware of by how much a war widow's pension has increased in the past year—from £13·30 to £17·20. A war widow who is working and earning a modest income is little better off. I know of one widow who is 40p a week worse off than she was two years ago. It is because of this that I have remained for this debate, rather than return to my constituency, so that I may speak on behalf of war widows who have this grievance. They cannot believe that a Government which are so generous to car workers, steel workers and many other sections of the community can neglect them in this shameful way.

Dr. M. S. Miller: I would like some genuine information from the hon. Member. I know that he is interested in a number of businesses in Scotland. Does he make a point in his businesses of employing in any capacity whatever some of the war widows about whom he is so much—rightly—concerned?

Mr. Watt: I am somewhat at a loss to understand that intervention. While I am an employer of six people it so happens that I do not at the moment employ a war widow. If there were a case for my doing so, obviously I would. What incentive would she have to come to work for me, or anyone else, when she finds that the gratuity which ought to be hers is being so wrongfully taxed?

8.33 p.m.

Mr. A. P. Costain: I cancelled a long-standing engagement for this evening so that I could take part in this debate initiated by my right hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Page). I felt that I would not be doing my duty to my constituents if I failed to be present this evening.
My right hon. Friend always deals with a subject so thoroughly that there is little more to be said. There are, however, one or two points which I find most distasteful about this subject. The fact that my right hon. Friend has dealt with most of them in no way decreases the urgency of the problem. If a war widow decides to many again and, unfortunately, is


widowed yet again, she loses any entitlement to her war widow's pension. What possible argument can there be for such a ruling? It is absolutely inexcusable.
Because my constituency is so close to the European Continent there are a number of people from Europe living there. The widows of our one-time enemies are, I find, receiving a much better pension than the widows of our soldiers who died defending us. It does not make sense. We ought to be thoroughly ashamed of it. This is no party matter. The Minister has referred to the increases in war widows' pensions in recent years, but he should not be too proud of that fact. With an increase of inflation of over 26 per cent., he should be ashamed of the fact that he has not done more.
The hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Mr. Clark) is one of my constituents. Both our constituencies have strong military connections and we both know from our surgeries of the many problems facing war widows. There is a general's widow living in my constituency. Her late husband gained great honours and recognition in the Second World War, but she is too proud to ask for any relief. It is pathetic to see the conditions in which she lives when one thinks of how she would have been living if her husband had been spared in the war.
I do not want to prolong this debate unnecessarily because there are many other important subjects to be discussed during the night, but I want to emphasise the problems of second-time widows and the fact, of which I am ashamed, that we tax war widows' pensions. It is pathetic when we put up widows' pensions to make it look as if we have done something for them and then tax the pensions. The Minister has boasted about the fact that the pension has been increased—

Mr. Alfred Morris: All I did was to ask a question of the hon. Member for Banff (Mr. Watt). He gave me the wrong answer and revealed in that moment that he was not aware of the figures. I made no statement. Later in the debate, I shall be making a statement, but at that stage I was merely asking a question.

Mr. Costain: I have no doubts about the Minister's sincerity. We all admire the way in which he has pushed this matter with his colleagues. I object only

to the fact that they are so unsympathetic to him. I know the Minister is doing his best and I hope he will believe that those of us who have stayed behind, at some inconvenience, are here because we want to help him in his task. However, when he draws attention to the fact that the pensions have risen more in recent years than in the past, he must also bear in mind that the cost of living and the threshold of taxation have also gone up Commonwealth countries and our onetime enemies give tax-free war widows' pensions. Is it too much to hope that we might follow suit?

8.39 p.m.

Mr. Tony Durant: I wish to support my right hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) in this small debate. He was often abused by the Opposition when he was a Minister introducing Government legislation, but very often he raises minority issues that really matter to people, and that is one of the reasons I am here to support him. We often forget minority groups, and if we are to mean anything as a Parliament we must think more often about minority groups
This debate gives us that opportunity to think about minority groups such as single-parent families and widows who have been left out of the mainstream of help. The problem is that they do not have any muscle. They have no CBI or TUC to back them. They have no trade association to rush in to make their case. They do not even represent a large number of votes, which often has a tremendous influence on Members of Parliament. They are just a small number of people who at present suffer considerable hardship.
We are discussing a small minority of war widows. My right hon. Friend the Member for Crosby said that they numbered about 88,000, and the number is diminishing steadily as they die off. None the less, they are important. A small proportion of them were widowed in the First World War. They made "the supreme sacrifice". It is easy for us in comfortable surroundings to forget that a woman widowed in these circumstances loses the mainstay of her life. She may have cared deeply about her husband. Suddenly, she is alone at quite a young age.
During the speech of the hon. Member for Banff (Mr. Watt), the hon. Member for East Kilbride (Dr. Miller) intervened to ask him whether he had offered employment to war widows in his factory. I thought that it was an odd question to ask, bearing in mind the likely ages of the women concerned. After all, they made sacrifices in both world wars. At the time, we made great statements about freedom and how these men had sacrificed their lives for the nation, and that we would look after their widows and think about them. But we do not, and it is a tragedy.
The trouble is that society thinks a great deal about any problem immediately that it arises. Like Northern Ireland, the problem is with us now, and we are conscious of it. But the First World War is a very long way away, and the Second World War is now getting to be a long way away, and we tend to forget. It is right to bring this subject to our attention, and we must all be grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for Crosby.
Looking at the European scene, one interesting aspect is the number of benefits in Europe which are given free of tax. Any subsequent earnings are taxed at normal rates, but a pension or benefit which a person gets as of right is paid tax-free. I am not sure that this is not the direction in which we should move. The benefit should be paid tax-free, with any money earned subsequently taxed at the normal rate.
Earlier today, I asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer about tax thresholds, because they affect the woman widowed in the Second World War especially. If she tries to earn a living, because of the threshold, she is taxed at a very high rate on any earnings. This is a matter which should be looked into immediately.
We have all neglected this small minority. I make no party point, because Governments of both major parties are guilty of this. We have a Minister who is sympathetic to minority groups, and I respect him greatly for that. I hope that he will study all the sincere arguments produced in this short debate by hon. Members on both sides of the House.

8.44 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Alfred Morris): I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) for raising matters which this House regards as deeply important. He showed eloquently his own real concern for the problems of war widows. I am also grateful to other hon. Members who took part in the debate.
I feel that I should declare a personal interest in this subject. It arises not just in my capacity as Minister responsible for war pensions, nor even because I legislated on war pensions as a private Member when taking through this House the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Bill in 1969–70, but because my own father was disabled in the First World War. Until her death in 1959, my mother was a war widow for 24 years. Thus I knew from boyhood, my father having died in 1935 when I was only seven years of age, that it is not just sympathy that war widows and their families need but a humane understanding of their circumstances and problems.
When I first became involved in these problems through personal experience in the 1930s, most war widows suffered severe hardship. I do not underestimate—nor shall I ever do so—the problems of war widows in contemporary Britain. I must, however, emphasise that the Government have increased the rate of the war widow's pension three times since taking office, twice in the past year. The total increase in war widows pensions over the past two years is 70 per cent. plus. The hon. Member for Banff (Mr. Watt) said that the basic war widow's pension had increased from £13 to £17·20. The Labour Government inherited a basic war widow's pension of £10·10, and last month the basic pension was raised to £17·20.

Mr. Watt: Will the Minister tell us whether the pension has increased in real terms?

Mr. Morris: I shall be coming to all the points that have been raised in the debate.
The three increases since 1973 have not only taken care of inflation but represent an improvement in real terms compared with 1973 when the economic situation


was much easier than it is today. I do not claim that this is enough, but it is evidence that the Government have in no way neglected the claims of this special section of the community. I need not stress in this House that, no matter how much we do for war widows, it can never make up for their grievous loss, often after a relatively short period of married life, of a husband who is killed or dies later as a result of injuries received in the service of his country.
Before I go any further, it may help if I state briefly exactly who qualifies for a war widow's pension under the War Pensions Scheme administered by my Department. The basic condition for an award is that the husband's death was due to or hastened by an injury which was attributable to service, or the aggravation by service of an injury which existed before or arose during service. This means that not only can widows of men killed in action qualify for a pension but the widows of men who die many years after receiving an injury while in service can also qualify.
Over the years, the eligibility condition has been relaxed in many ways. For example where the war disablement pensioner was in receipt of constant attendance allowance at the normal maximum rate or higher when he died, his widow can be awarded a pension regardless of the cause of death. The latest available figures show that at the end of September last there were 91,000 war widows' pensions in payment, of which 25,000 resulted from the 1914 war—the Kaiser's war, in the language of the right hon. Member for Crosby. These figures include nearly 4,000 war widows resident outside the United Kingdom.
The extent of provision for these widows under the War Pensions Scheme is not always generally appreciated. Since the November increase, the standard rate of war widow's pension—payable to the widow of an Army private—stands at £17·20 a week. This gives the war widow a lead over the national insurance widow of £3·90 a week, or nearly 30 per cent. It must be said for successive Government's that this is a percentage difference which has been consistently maintained.
That is not the whole story. Where there are dependent children, a weekly allowance of £6·70 is paid for the first

child. There are also allowances for any additional children. Receipt of children's allowance carries with it entitlement to a rent allowance of up to £6·70 a week, and in certain circumstances also education allowance of up to £120 a year. All these additional allowances are tax-free for war widows and, of course, neither the education allowance nor the rent allowance is payable to national insurance widows.
More elderly war widows are not forgotten. They receive age allowances in addition to their war pension. These age allowances, which are another unique feature of the War Pensions Scheme, are now, as the right hon. Member for Crosby pointed out, £1·70 a week at age 65, increasing to £3·40 on the widow's 70th birthday. About two-thirds of war widows over 60 receive two State pensions—their war widow's pension, plus any appropriate age allowance, and a retirement pension based on their own contributions.
As I have said, the standard rate of war widow's pensions has consistently exceeded, under successive Governments, the national insurance widow's pension rate by an average of 30 per cent. This figure relates solely to the pension paid to a widow of a private. It takes no account of the additional allowances for which a war widow may qualify, or the larger pensions received by widows of higher ranks. War widows' pension rates for widows with children or those over 40, range from the £17·20, which I have mentioned, to £1,507 a year.
From what I have said so far I hope that the House can see that this Government, like previous Governments—I make no party point whatever—is determined to ensure that the claims of war widows are fully regarded.

Mr. Graham Page: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that all the figures he has given do not amount to more than about 50 per cent. of the pension given to the widow bereaved since March 1973? Will he also confirm that the child allowances are irrelevant to the widows of the First and Second World Wars?

Mr. Morris: The right hon. Gentleman may regard it as unfortunate, but I have not yet finished with figures. When I return to them later I shall deal with this and the other points raised by the right hon. Gentleman.
Despite the Government's policy of giving them priority, war widows have many difficulties to face. In particular, I know that income tax is an issue which causes them concern.
It was right for the right hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members to refer to income tax in the course of his speech. The House will appreciate—as the right hon. Gentleman has already appreciated—that the question of income tax is entirely a matter for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Treasury opinion that war widows' pensions should not be relieved from income tax has not changed since 1919 when the then Chancellor decided that it was necessary to distinguish between war disablement pensions, which by analogy with workmen's compensation were tax-free, and war widows' pensions, payable not for disablement but in augmentation of income diminished by death.
However, I can assure the right hon. Gentleman and all hon. Members who have taken part in the debate that, as Minister for War Pensions, I take every opportunity of ensuring that Treasury Ministers are fully aware of the very strong feeling in the ex-Service world about the tax treatment of war widows' pensions. I know that the right hon. Gentleman will recall that during the course of the debate on his amendment to what is now the Finance (No. 2) Act 1975 it was pointed out that tax exemption for war widows' pensions would mean that other people with the same level of income and similar family circumstances would pay more income tax than war widows.
It is often said that our war widows fare badly compared with those in many other countries. That point has been made by more than one speaker tonight. Yet the basis for calculating war widows' pensions differs so markedly between different countries that valid comparisons are not always possible or even meaningful.
In making international comparisons it must be remembered that in several other countries—notably Germany—war pensions are at least partially means tested. This has a similar effect to income tax in reducing the pension in proportion to other income. In Britain, of

course, a war widow's pension is awarded irrespective of any outside income.
Any comparisons between isolated items are meaningless unless all the relevant factors in the country of origin—such as the purchasing power of the pension, the full range of compensation and the social services provided—are taken into consideration. It is these items which determine the real value of cash benefits.
I must emphasise that, when deciding pension rates, the factors to be taken into account are the economic circumstances and living standards in the United Kingdom, not those obtaining in other countries.
I have already explained the way in which the war widows' special position is recognised in this country. Indeed, I think it only fair to emphasise that many people in other groups, such as the one-parent families and the civilian disabled, have a far lower degree of financial provision than war widows. That point was made in an intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Southall (Mr. Bidwell). Such widows point to the fact that the widows of Service men killed in Northern Ireland receive much higher pensions than others. We should bear in mind, however, that the Northern Ireland widow qualifies not only for a war widow's pension from my Department, but, as the right hon. Member for Crosby noted in his speech, for an occupational pension from her late husband's employer—namely, the Ministry of Defence.
The right hon. Gentleman will recall that the Ministry of Defence revised its Armed Forces Pension Scheme in 1973—that is, during the previous Administration—with the aim of ensuring that Service men and their dependants received the same level of financial security as is made available today by the good employer. The scheme provides pensions related to rank, earnings and length of service and is confined to regular Service men and their families.

Mr. Watt: Given all the factors brought out by the hon. Gentleman and the fact that we are living in the age of computers, may I ask whether he has fed the relevant facts into the computer and, if so, how the war widow in Britain compares with her counterpart in other EEC countries?

Mr. Graham Page: The occupational pension which is now awarded by the Ministry of Defence to widows bereaved since March 1973 is on the lines of pensions given by ordinary civilian employers. But those who joined up for the First and Second World Wars had no opportunity of obtaining such pensions. The Americans realised that and provided the same kind of occupational pension in the Second World War as the Ministry of Defence is now supplying. Therefore, it is impossible to compare the widow bereaved now with the widow of a young man who joined up in the Second World War who could not get this kind of insurance.

Mr. Morris: I have no wish to detain the House with a long speech. I gave way to the hon. Member for Banff and the right hon. Member for Crosby for the purpose of clarifying any points they wished to make arising from what I had said. I tried to make it clear that international comparisons were not only difficult but could be meaningless. One gets out of the computer what one feeds into it. If one is unable to make legitimate comparisons, a computer is as unlikely to help as any other means of adjudication. To make a meaningful comparison one would have to take many issues into account.
The right hon. Gentleman reminded us that those who were widowed by the First and Second World Wars had no opportunity of participating in the scheme introduced by the last Government—the Armed Forces Pension Scheme 1973. I appreciate that any innovation will cause problems, but the whole purpose of tonight's debate is to look at the problems of those who, because of the arrangements made in 1973 could not possibly be included in the scheme. The longstanding purpose underlying the War Pensions Scheme is quite different from the Armed Forces Pension Scheme. It exists to provide pensions for men disabled by service and for their widows and dependants where the man's death results from service causes. Unlike the Ministry of Defence Scheme, no limitations are imposed arising from the type of engagement or the length of service. A war widow's pension is intended to replace, to some extent, the income lost as a result of her husband's death, and

the level of pension is determined by the general level of social security benefits.
I cannot speak for the previous Government, of which the right hon. Gentleman was himself a member, but I can say that this Government have not lightly dismissed the many representations on this matter which have been made on behalf of war widows. I have had lengthy discussions with the main ex-Service organisations, and their views have been considered very seriously. The main factor in the Government's decision not to equalise the benefits of the War Pensions Scheme and the Armed Forces Pension Scheme is the essential difference between the two Schemes.
The possibility of introducing retrospective payments into the Armed Forces Pension Scheme has been considered by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Defence. However, it is a standard principle of occupational pension schemes in both the public and private sectors that any improvement will apply only to those, or the widows of those, actually serving at the time of its introduction.
The effect of equating the provisions of the War Pensions Scheme wilh those of the Armed Forces Pensions Scheme covering service after 31st March 1973 would more than double the present cost of my Department's Scheme. The cost to the paying Department of giving all war widows parity has been estimated as being in the region of £100 million. This is, however, only part of the total cost of equalising the two schemes. Clearly we could not possibly exclude war disablement pensioners from the equalisation process. The combined cost may therefore be about £250 million. It was this point which was missing from the right hon. Gentleman's argument. We would have to include disablement pensioners as well as war widows in the scheme, otherwise there would be one Consolidated Fund debate after another about the new inequalities of what we had done.
I fully respect the right of the many organisations representing ex-Service men and war widows to press their claim for an improvement in these pensions. Since taking over responsibility for war pensions I have had full discussions with


many of the major organisations. The hon. Member for Banff will be glad to know that I have discussed this with the Royal British Legion (Scotland) as well as with the Royal British Legion, and with many other organisations. I have had to point out that if the previous Government were unable to extend the provisions of the 1973 scheme, there would be intimidating difficulties in our attempting to do so in the daunting economic climate of 1975. Indeed, the most frequent call from Conservative Members is for there to be not increases but massive cuts in public expenditure.
I can give the assurance that we shall always seek to ensure that the rises in pension keep abreast of any rises in the cost of living. I cannot make any promises about special increases for war widows, but I can confirm my resolve, which is shared by the Government, to see that the widows maintain their present standing and do not slip back in any way compared with other beneficiaries.

Mr. Graham Page: Will the Minister give an assurance that he will look into the figures? He has come up with another figure of £100 million as the cost of increasing the pension of widows. He says he cannot make that increase without increasing the pension for the disabled, and that that would amount to another £250 million. These are round figures and, quite frankly, I have no faith in them. An undertaking was given by a Minister in the other place that the figures would be investigated and the cost of equalising pensions looked into. May I urge the Minister to stop throwing out these round figures and instead to instigate a proper investigation of them?

Mr. Morris: I give the assurance that I shall look into the figures if the right hon. Gentleman will apologise to those hon. Members who have debates later in the night and who may be delayed by a lengthy speech by me. The right hon. Gentleman and I should be in correspondence about the figures. Those I have given are the best available to me.
In conclusion perhaps I might return to my own close personal interest in the subject both as Minister with responsibility for war pensions, and as a man orphaned by the First World War. I do not think I need any spur to do my very best in this field, and I am sure that all

of us have a special place in our thoughts for people who are disabled or widowed as a result of service to our country.

Orders of the Day — TRUNK ROADS (SCOTLAND)

9.8 p.m.

Mr. Hector Monro: I am glad to have the chance to initiate a debate on the A74 and the A75. I must express my gratitude to Lord Kirkhill, who has been most recently in charge of the roads department of the Scottish Development Department and has written me a number of helpful letters.
Recently the regional chief executive of Dumfries and Galloway said that when history was written about the South-West of Scotland it would be a tale of two roads—the A74 and the A75. The first is the main artery between England and Scotland. The second is the vital link from Carlisle to Stranraer. Few areas can be so involved with major trunk routes as those through which these roads pass. In this case 80 per cent. of the population lives alongside them, yet the A74 and A75 are inadequate for their purposes. Both carry vast volumes of traffic with ever-increasing numbers of container wagons and, happily, tourists in the summer. A major acceleration of tourism has developed since the completion of the M6, and both in that respect and in connection with industry, the potential of South-West Scotland is bound up with these two roads.
I deal first with the A74. In 1937 proposals were in hand to upgrade the road to dual carriageway, perhaps on a new route. Because of the war only a stretch of the old route was completed. Few roads can have been in such a bad state of repair, alignment and congestion. We forget just what a misery it was to drive on that road in the 1940s and the 1950s. That is why it was the first major road for major reconstruction after the war. Perhaps that is unfortunate, because it was designed before the motorway conception was the normal form of major reconstruction.
The subsequent increase in traffic was just not envisaged, and it is not fair to blame the planners in the 1940s, because at that time we were pleased to get anything at


all. The construction took years and it was not until it was completed in 1973 and providing a high speed road throughout its length that its inherent dangers became obvious. This is partly because the construction of the last stretch, the Gretna by-pass, went on until shortly before it was opened and traffic was slowed down effectively from the M6 on to the A74.
The Minister will know that, despite frequent headlines in the Press, I have never personally used the phrase "killer road" and I do not intend to do so tonight. Few accidents are just accidents. They are mostly caused by human error or lack of skill and experience in adverse weather conditions. But it is our duty to see that drivers are constantly on their guard and to provide the safest conditions.
For a multitude of reasons, the situation is serious and deteriorating. I am not speaking with hindsight. The files of the Scottish Development Department must be heavy with correspondence from me, fromthe Dumfries County Council, from residents, from the NFU, from the AA and RAC and now, of course, from the regional authority. The local authorities have certainly played their part in bringing out the serious defects of this road.
I know from my own experience that Ministers are responsible for Departments. I think that all Ministers responsible have been to see the A74 and the A75 for themselves. After some thought, however, Ithink that a fair comment might be that Ministers may come and Ministers may go but the SDD goes on for ever.
If there is a common theme in the letters that I have had from Ministers over many years and covering both Governments, and the letters from the Department to local authorities, it is the expression of a reluctance to do anything except as a last resort and then only after the greatest consultation with the Road Research Laboratory, the Road Safety Unit and every other body which has given its advice. I remember this particularly because when I first suggested the commercial vehicles sign which has subsequently been quite a success—recently improved by the addition of the 40 mph figures—I was almost driven to

despair in trying to get one of them accepted and erected anywhere in Scotland.
What I have said is true also of the incredibly slow progress with the continuous central barrier, a most important feature which should continue for the length of the road. I have been pressing for such a barrier since 1972, yet in 1975 the same arguments are being trotted out, couched in such terrible jargon as "cross-median accidents" and expressing the view that somehow accidents would be less dangerous if cars crossed the central reservation than if they hit other cars going the same way. If the experts still think that, I say flatly that they are wrong. Many lives could have been saved over 10 years if there had been a continuous central reservation barrier. I am therefore glad that this is likely to be erected in the not-too-distant future north of Beat-tock, even though it seems to be going against the Department's arguments over a very long time.
The Minister knows of the statistics that the Secretary of State has provided in many Written Questions. The important fact which emerges is that at either end of the A74 are the M74 and the M6, both of which have much lower accident rates than the A74, although carting the same traffic flow. This has certainly been a bad year for the A74. There have been 30 deaths. I need not reiterate the tragic bus accident that happened in June and the many other fatal accidents, all of which have been personal disasters to the families concerned.
I want to record how fortunate we are to have such brilliant doctors, and medical staff at the Dumfries Royal Infirmary and to record appreciation to those ambulancemen, policemen and firemen involved.
I shall put statistics aside, The plain fact is that this road is accident-prone and but for the slight reduction in the volume of traffic on account of the fuel crisis, accident figures would have been worse. I hope that the Scottish Office and the Minister will be flexible when they examine the statistics because there has been an unhappy trend of accidents on this road over the past year or so.
Everyone knows that a road of motorway standards is the ideal and only solution but we must be practical in terms


of costs. An alternative service road and an upgrading of the A74 to motorway standard would probably cost in the region of £100 million. Alternatively, we could consider an additional third lane which would not involve the road being upgraded to motorway standard. In that case, we should not need the alternative service road. However, that does not solve the problem of agricultural vehicles or even pedestrians. I realise the chaos that would occur on the present road, with delays and frustration over several years, if a major reconstruction took place.
Therefore, I want to deal practically with the situation over the next two years bearing in mind cost and the limit on Government expenditure. However, there is room for some redistribution of money between the Ministries and the A74 might benefit from this. I appreciate that at present about £300,000 is being spent on the A74 on additional lengths of barrier, hard strips, drainage, resurfacing and reflecting studs. Anyone who drives on the A74 at present can see the cost of those improvements in terms of congestion. That is a fact of life, It is a pity that when improvements to roads are carried out there is not greater co-ordination with services such as the Post Office, because the Post Office is running a cable along the A74 at the same time as these improvements are taking place and this adds extensively to the inconvenience.
I wish to make 10 points about the A74. First, the continuous central barrier reduces the severity of accidents and saves lives. Second, there is the issue of the bridge at Johnstone Bridge for pedestrians. School children have to cross the road here to get a bus, and this bridge was under consideration in 1973. In 1974 and 1975 I heard nothing more about it, although I appreciate that the junction has been upgraded to an extent.
Third, 30 schoolchildren join the bus for the short ride between Lockerbie and Ecclefechan. We shall have to consider additional lay-bys for school buses because the children have to get on and off at the farm road ends. Perhaps there could even be a recommendation from the Secretary of State for Scotland that school buses should be fitted with hazard warning lights when they are stationary

so that passing traffic can see them more readily.
Fourth, I want to ask the Minister about underpasses. We have advocated these for many years. More recently, the local authority has conducted a safety and operational study of underpasses for dairy farmers who have to drive their herds across this dual carriageway twice a day and find it extremely hazardous. Indeed, on occasions they might have to cross the dual carriageway four times daily, going to and from milking. Two or three underpasses at the farms most specifically concerned would be very advantageous.
Fifth, and importantly, the Minister must look again at the signs to be seen when leaving the M6 coming north on to the A74. I know that the signs change from blue to green and that the carriageways reduce from three to two. However, when one has been driving 330 miles from London, one tends perhaps to be concentrating not as hard as one would as one comes to the interchange at Carlisle. I believe that very many motorists honestly do not realise that they have changed from the M6 to the A74. This involves an immediate effect on commercial vehicles in that they are reduced to 40 m.p.h. This is most important.
For this reason—and sixth—I have been rather disappointed with my efforts to persuade the Government to do rather more to inform foreign tourists about our fuel-saving speed limits. Many overseas visitors—I see many going up and down the road in the summer—just do not realise that we have fuel-saving speed limits and that if they leave the M6 and go on to the A74 their speed should be reduced to 60 mph. instead of the 70 mph they have been doing for 300 miles. I asked the Minister concerned to arrange for special signs to be erected at the tourist centre south of Carlisle, but I got a dusty answer. We should do more to inform visitors about our speed limits.
Seventh, I want to see continued pressure by our overworked police on controlling and keeping down the speed of commercial vehicles. This has been a big success. I congratulate the police force. Every time I travel along the road I notice that the container wagons and articulated lorries are going slower


now that their drivers know that they are more likely to be caught and have severe fines imposed upon them in the sheriff courts. I hope that within the resources—I know that it costs a lot of money—this continues.
Eighth, I hope that every right turn on the dual carriageway will have a central slip road so that one can get off the fast lane.
Ninth, I should like to see a ban on parking in lay-bys on the side of the A74. Some people have been killed when sitting in their car or a caravan. I should like to see the local authority able to provide more picnic spots away from the carriageway. The local authority has been pressing for this since 1972, but nothing has happened.
Lastly, in relation to the A74 I want the Government to look very carefully—as I am sure they are doing—at the medium term and whether we should be considering upgrading this road as the years roll ahead of us, because we must not be complacent and think that this road will be adequate into the 1980s.
I know that the Minister will in time answer many of these points. I turn rather more briefly to the A75. I notice that the hon. Member for Galloway (Mr. Thompson) is present in the Chamber. I am sure that he will want to talk a little about the road as it affects his constituency. It is equally important and, as I shall show to the Minister, internationally important. This is a much more simple story, which will not take so long to tell. It is the main artery between Stranraer and Dumfries in the south and from Galloway to Edinburgh, and now it is the Euro-road between Belfast and the Continent. The Minister will know of the amazing build-up of container traffic from the terminals at Stranraer and Cairnryan, most of which uses this road from the roll-on/roll-off ferries. The build-up has been impressive and is most important.
I hope that the Minister will remember these figures when I speak shortly about the Dumfries traffic survey. In 1968, according to the figures I have, 28,000 commercial vehicles used the ferries at Stranraer, and in 1975 the figure had built up to 125,000 commercial vehicles, mostly large container vehicles. Of

course, as on the A74 there has been a huge increase in tourism and caravans since the opening of the M6. That we welcome, but we must try to provide adequate roads for tourists and caravans.
In addition to what I have said about tourism and caravans, it is the main road for industry and communication in the South-West of Scotland. I have written to the Secretary of State for the Environment about the possibility of the closure of the Dumfries-Kilmarnock railway line. I hope that there is no truth in that suggestion.
I know that a substantial sum has already been spent on the road, but there is much to do. I should be grateful if the Minister could answer some of the questions of which I have given him advance notice.
Going from the East to the West, unlike young Lochinvar, I should tell the House that Lord Hughes was very good in coming to Gretna last spring to look at the Callendar-Hamilton temporary Bailey bridge built across the A74. After he had talked to the councillors and myself, there was some optimism that he would give a favourable decision in the not-too-distant future. The Department has had the figures since the end of April. The difference between the estimates for one scheme and another was very small. It is essential to have a new bridge on the site of the present bridge, because we cannot return to the old single-carriageway bridge over the River Sark.
At Rigg the local authority has begun the maximum action following inquiries by residents. It is now up to the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, to make a decision on the speed limit. I am sure that he will do so as soon as he has the facts.
There is heavy congestion in Annan, with a long tailback, particularly in summer. There has been much pressure from the town of Annan and the local authority to get ahead with planning the bypass for Eastriggs and Annan.
There is also pressure for progress on the bypass at Collin. I sent a petition bearing 667 signatures to the noble Lord, Lord Hughes. There has been a long delay over planning that bypass, and the local residents are deeply concerned. I hope that the Minister of State will give the local authority permission to go ahead with the planning survey as soon as possible.
To me, the main issue is the bypass at Dumfries. We must have an outer ring road plus a new bridge over the River Nith. The old idea of an inner ring road is outdated, particularly on account of the ferry traffic, which has made such a difference to the road, and the general increase in local traffic. We must have an outer ring road with a link to the A76 to Kilmarnock and Ayr and to the A75 to Stranraer. If that happens, an inner ring road will be unnecessary.
The Department has been putting pressure on the regional authority, saying that it must do the work itself. There is an astonishing anomaly. The distance from Stranraer to London is 403 miles, and the Government are responsible for all but the three going through the town of Dumfries. I know that this goes back to large burgh days, and that there may have been a defect in the legislation. But, whatever has happened, the Government must accept that they cannot opt out of the issue, leaving a regional authority to look after three miles between Stranraer and London. This is such an obvious defect that the Government must think again.
The Government must help a community that has been plagued by heavy vehicles. The centre of Dumfries has become a nightmare of noise, vibration and pollution. Exeter and Carlisle used to be the great bottlenecks of Britain. Now Dumfries is one.
The matter causes me great concern in summer. We do not want so to frighten tourists that they do not return to this attractive part of the world.
In conclusion, I trespass briefly into the territory of the hon. Member for Galloway. I do so to highlight the situation at Newton Stewart, for which I give him my support in advance. There is no alternative bridge over the River Cree. If there were a major defect to that bridge we would be in dead trouble because of all the container traffic using it day and night. I hope that the Minister will go ahead with the bypass as soon as possible.
There have been many other schemes in the pipeline and I know that we must be reasonable about expense. They cannot all be done at once. Nevertheless, bone that the Minister of State will give us some encouraging answers. If he does

they will be most welcome in an area that lives with its roads and has to live with their difficulties.

9.31 p.m.

Mr. George Thompson: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. Monro) for raising the matter of the A75. I had the pleasure last night of meeting some of the Ocean Islanders who are hoping to hear some of their affairs debated at a later stage. I promised that I would try to be as brief as possible so as to facilitate matters for those who are raising other subjects.
I have represented Galloway for only a year and a bit but already I have quite a sizeable file on the A75. If I added to it the letters of the complaint from individuals about their individual problems a two-inch Treasury tag would not serve to hold the file together any longer.
I shall divide my speech into two parts. First, I want to take a mental motor run along the A75 from Dumfries to Stranraer. I hope that someone from the Scottish Office will one day be persuaded to make the actual journey. They have already seen the stretch from Gretna to Dumfries and it is high time that they saw the other stretch. Perhaps the Minister of State will put a word in the ear of Lord Kirkhill. Second, I want to make one or two general observations on the A75.
I heartily support the hon. Member for Dumfries in his remarks about Dumfries town. Although I may be slightly trespassing on his territory, we in Galloway depend upon Dumfries as our railhead. That applies especially to those who live in the eastern part of the old province.
The first constituency matter that I raise is the need for a 30 mph limit in the village of Springholme. I have taken up this matter with the noble Lord and he has promised to investigate it. Although it is true that there is not a run of houses on both sides of the A75 in this village, there is a large housing scheme and a school on a minor road which feeds into the A75 in the middle of the village street. People who want to get to the shops or the hotel, or children crossing to their homes on the other side of the A75, have the difficulty of dealing with traffic which is travelling at considerable speeds Further, I draw to the attention of the


right hon. Gentleman that some of the council houses are occupied by elderly people who must find the conditions particularly trying.
I have no doubt that Castle Douglas will get a bypass in due course. Perhaps the pressure is not so great at present because there are two streets that take traffic and the local traffic is fairly vigorous, tending to hold up the juggernauts that might be tempted to press on a little too fast. Then there is the bridge over the River Dee which is high and narrow. The road going to it from Castle Douglas goes into almost a right-angled bend before it crosses the bridge. I have taken up the matter with the Scottish Office and I have been told that traffic lights would not be possible because they would hold up the flow of traffic, especially when there is not a flow from both directions at the same time.
Can the Minister say when the new bridge will be built? I am happy to mention Twynholm because it has its bypass and it is now once more a pleasant place to live in and to visit.
On the subject of Gatehouse-of-Fleet, I had a letter this week from the Interim Community Council drawing attention to facts of which I was well aware at an earlier stage because at the last two General Elections I felt that I was taking my life in my hands every time I crossed the street in that area. It required some agility to cross the street safely. What can the situation be like for the elderly people in the town because it is a town that has attracted to it many older people?
We have heard about the situation of towns and villages through which the A75 passes. What about the structural damage inflicted on houses? Gatehouse has a problem because there is a steep hill in the area as one comes from the direction of Kirkcudbright. This means that vehicles tend to come into the town too rapidly from the point of view of safety. On the other hand, vehicles coming from the other direction tend to speed up to take the hill.
In Creetown there is a narrow bridge. It is interesting from an architectural point of view, but not quite what is needed on the A75 today. Again this is a village that requires a bypass.
Newton Stewart should be the happiest town on the A75 because the inhabitants know that they will be the first on the list for a bypass. Yet I assure the Minister that the inhabitants' happiness has been tempered because the Scottish Office will not commit itself to a date for that bypass.
I quote from a letter received from the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, as follows:
I accept that the delay in starting the Newton Stewart bypass is bound to have caused some disappointment.
He can say that again! He continues:
In all the circumstances it would be difficult to give an undertaking that the bypass will definitely start in 1977–78, but I can repeat the assurance that it is a strong candidate for inclusion in the programme of starts in that year.
The people of Newton Stewart are not satisfied to be "strong candidates". They want something more.
The hon. Member for Dumfries pointed out what would happen if the bridge in Newton Stewart collapsed. It would be a catastrophe for the control of that section of the highway.
I then wish to mention Glenluce. But first I must mention stretches of the road in the vicinity of Kirkcowan where there are double white lines for hundreds of yards. I regard Glenluce as possibly the most dangerous village on the A75. It has a narrow, steep street with a twist in it.
I remember in my maiden speech last year mentioning an accident involving a juggernaut that crossed the street and attempted to enter a hotel, not by the main door. At present there is a proposal to restrict parking to one side of the street in some parts of the village and to abolish parking in other parts. The effect of that move would be deleterious on the village because traffic would no longer stop there on the way to other areas. People on their way to Stranraer or Newton Stewart often stop in the village for shopping, as do tourists on their way to other areas. Therefore if there are no adjacent parking places to the A75 shops in the village would gradually run down.
I also wish to mention Challoch railway bridge between Glenluce and Stranraer. There have been accidents on that part of the road because of the difficult bends. I am not sure what could be


done about that bridge but I hope that the Scottish Development Department will examine the situation.
In Stranraer we face the difficulty that the harbour is in the middle of the town. Heavy goods vehicles have to travel through the town to get there. Admittedly, alterations are being made to London Road so that they will at least be able to turn the corner a bit more successfully. We can only regret that the harbour was not built a little further to the east, along Loch Ryan. That would have saved the town this inconvenience.
I turn to more general matters. The loss of the railway has thrown much traffic on to the A75. The opening of the new ferry port at Cairnryan by Townsend-Thorensen brought even more traffic. We welcome this because we are glad to have the extra employment it provides in the area—an area that has been, and still is, plagued by unemployment. People have had to learn to put up with the heavy vehicles thundering through the towns and villages day and night. We owe it to them, however, to press for the necessary bypasses.
I wish to refer to a legal problem which I raised with the Lord Advocate on 18th June. I do not expect the Minister of State to reply to this tonight, but perhaps he might mention it to his right hon. and learned Friend. I raised the matter of Irish drivers who commit traffic offences and who cannot be brought before the Scottish courts because they cannot be arrested for minor offences. These people return to Ireland and cannot be brought back. The Lord Advocate replied:
This matter is, however, causing me some concern and it is under active consideration by the Home Office Committee. I understand that various matters which may have a bearing on this problem have also been considered by the Thomson Committee on Criminal Procedure in Scotland."—[Official Report, 18th June 1975; Vol. 893, c. 1390.]
The right hon. and learned Gentleman was correct because I find in the Second Report of the Thomson Committee at page 76 the admission that:
There is no way by which an accused person resident in Northern Ireland may be cited to a Scottish summary court.

At the end of the chapter, it is said:
We cannot make specific recommendations in relation to procedures which apply outwith Scotland but we do recommend that the appropriate authorities in England and Wales and Northern Ireland be approached by the Scottish authorities with a view to entering into discussions to establish a simple method of citation which would apply throughout the whole of the United Kingdom.
I hope that the Government will be able to take action on this.
We are bound to look to the future. One of the things which will loom large in the future of Galloway is the timber industry. We have vast expenses of forest. As the years go by, the volume of timber being carried on the A75 will increase, thus adding yet another procession of heavy goods vehicles to that already overburdened highway. There are always rumours in South-West Scotland that there may possibly be oil off our shores. Yesterday I received a reply to a Question tabled to the Secretary of State for Scotland—not a very good reply—concerning the steps he intends to take at Cairnryan to prepare for the exploitation of possible oil finds in the waters off Western and Southern Scotland. The right hon. Gentleman replied:
I have no proposals under consideration. Developments at Cairnryan, in the light of such requirements as may emerge, would be a matter initially for the local authority concerned."—[Official Report, 17th December 1975; Vol. 902, c. 665.]
I hope that we have the right to expect that if such finds are made we shall not have to wait for a long period for the A75 to be made up to the standard necessary for bringing in the required materials.
If it were possible, the best idea would be to have a plan prepared so that people in each town and village would know roughly the order in which various bypasses were to be built. When people know that something is to be done in a certain order, they will tolerate the inconvenience and, after all, these people have already tolerated inconvenience for years. We people of Galloway are not thrawn, cantankerous people who simply make up problems with which to bamboozle or inconvenience the Scottish Office. I am sure the Minister will accept that we are genuinely concerned about the A75 and I hope that he will be able to give us some positive assurances tonight.

9.46 p.m.

The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Mr. Bruce Millan): I congratulate the hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. Monro) on gaining such an early place in the Ballot and on raising these points about roads in the South-West of Scotland. As he has mentioned, he has had considerable correspondence with my noble Friend Lord Kirkhill about many of these matters, and I know that that is also true of the hon. Member for Galloway (Mr. Thompson). Lord Kirkhill is normally responsible on a day-to-day basis for the matters the hon. Members have raised, but it is my duty to answer this debate and I shall attempt to do so as best I can and in as much detail as I can. If there are any matters which I do not cover, I hope that the hon. Members will agree that I should arrange for my noble Friend to reply to them by letter on these points.
A general point has to be made first in all these debates. At any time, the improvements mentioned by the hon. Members would cost money, in some cases considerable amounts. We are in a period of financial stringency and the question of priorities is as important in regard to roads as it is to anything else. It is not enough to demonstrate, as can be demonstrated in many of these matters, that improvements are desirable and are very much wanted by the local community. It is also necessary to demonstrate that they merit a high place in the scheme of priorities for roads expenditure which itself has to fit into a wider scheme of priorities in public expenditure generally. It is an unfortunate fact that some of the improvements suggested for the A75, although obviously very desirable projects, do not, in the Government's view, merit the priority which the local community and both hon. Members would like them to have.
The responsibility of the regional council is also involved. It has an obligation to prepare transport policies and programmes. The Scottish Office, to help the regional council, suggested four schemes which we considered might represent a five-year plan. One of these was the Newton Stewart bypass about which I shall say something in a moment.
But it was also proposed that investigation work should be carried out on a further six schemes for which draft

planning briefs were issued in September, and final briefs will be issued shortly in the light of the council's comments. Those schemes included a number of those which were mentioned tonight.
Taking the Annan and Collin bypasses, to which the hon. Member for Dumfries referred, the position at the moment is that the region has submitted planning briefs for these bypasses and they will shortly be returned with a formal invitation by the Department to the region to undertake a study of possible road lines and to make recommendation. After that, the necessary trunk road orders will be made. Admittedly, we are at an early stage, but the preparation for these schemes is going ahead.
Of course, even after the orders have been laid and any public inquiries and so on have taken place, if they should be necessary, there is still the all-important question of finding a place for these schemes in the programme. But I hope that mention of these two schemes in this preliminary way at least indicates that the Department does not dispute that these schemes are necessary. It is simply a matter of fitting the expenditure into the programme.
The other four schemes on which investigation work is continuing are Castle Douglas, Ardachie, Glenluce and Gatehouse-of-Fleet. If I am not able to go into some of the detailed matters raised by the hon. Member for Galloway, I hope that he will accept that the Department agree that in all these areas there is a need to start the planning process to produce schemes in due course which then will have to be fitted into the programme.
The Newton Stewart bypass is a matter which has been the subject of correspondence. The hon. Member for Galloway had a letter from my noble Friend in October. We accept that this is a scheme to which the local community is very much attached, as is the regional council. When we have said that this is a strong candidate for inclusion in 1977–78, we have said as much as we can reasonably say at present. I cannot add anything to what my noble Friend said about that, but clearly again we recognise that it is an important scheme. If we did not face this difficulty about public expenditure, it


would be bound to have a high priority. We shall give it as high a priority as we can.
The hon. Member for Dumfries referred, of course, to Dumfries but again there is not a great deal that I can add to what has been said already. I know that it may appear prima facie rather anomalous that a small part of what is obviously a much longer road is the responsibility of the local authority and not of the Scottish Office. All that I can say is that the rules have been applied here as they were applied by his own Government and exactly as they are applied elsewhere.
I understand the regional council's view. From the council's point of view it would be desirable for the Scottish Office to take over responsibility for this stretch of road. We could not do that without creating a precedent for similar propositions. If there were evidence—I do not believe that there is—that Dumfries were being treated unfairly compared with other areas of Scotland, I should be willing to consider the matter, but we hold the firm view that it is a matter for the regional council.
The hon. Gentleman said that the idea of the inner ring road is outdated. That idea arises from the 1968 study. Obviously, 1975 is not 1968, and there have been traffic developments. I accept much of what the hon. Gentleman said about increased traffic on the road and the different nature of the traffic on the A75 generally since 1968. It does not necessarily follow that, because there has been an increase in traffic, the basic considerations which led to the conclusion in 1968, about the inner ring road are falsified. This matter is always open to debate and discussion.
The Department suggested to the local authority that the data on which the 1968 study was based should be brought up to date. The study was done in such a way as to allow for updating. That is no doubt a technical and complicated procedure. It is in the first instance a matter for the regional authority. If the regional authority is willing to carry out the work, we have told the authority that the Department's engineers would be willing to give every possible assistance in determining what information would be appropriate for any re-run of the existing traffic model. I concede that from the

point of view of the regional council there is little or no disadvantage in doing that exercise, but we do not accept that the 1968 conclusions are necessarily falsified.
The hon. Member for Dumfries also referred to the Callander-Hamilton Bridge. I have looked into the history. Various proposals for replacing the temporary bridge have been considered in an attempt to construct a permanent crossing of the River Sark. The bridge is a temporary one which belongs to the Scottish Development Department and should be returned to the Department's stock of temporary bridges. As a matter of priority, I see no prospect of a permanent arrangement—which would be quite expensive—at this site. In those circumstances we are not keen to remove the temporary bridge as to do so would necessarily create considerable problems. The Department is willing to leave the bridge there. I do not pretend that it is a permanent solution but at least it maintains the temporary solution.
The A74 has had a tremendous amount of publicity in recent months. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and Scottish Office Ministers generally appreciate that the hon. Member for Dumfries has always approached the problems of this road responsibly. There has been a good deal of exaggerated comment about the road—in which the hon. Gentleman has not engaged. However, he has tonight expressed his own strong dissatisfaction with the conditions on the road.
It is difficult to say that the road is not as bad as the newspapers quite often make it out to be without sounding complacent. In view of the tragic accidents which have taken place on that road during the current year the last thing one would want to do is to sound complacent. However, when we consider the situation as a whole, the accident figures show that in terms of frequency and so on the accidents on this road are not substantially different from accidents on similar roads elsewhere. Indeed, the number of accidents on this road—I am talking now about the total number of accidents involving injury or death—has tended to decrease in recent years. The number decreased in 1974 and I am glad to say that in the 11 months to the end of November 1975


there has been a further decrease. Therefore, the frequency of serious accidents, although it is alarming, is not increasing. However, during the current year there have been a number of tragic accidents with the result that the number of deaths, as the hon. Gentleman has pointed out, will show a considerable increase for 1975.
I accept that there is a good deal of justice in the point which the hon. Gentleman made—namely, that it is only when tragic accidents occur that one feels a sense of urgency which perhaps ought to be present when dealing with any of our road problems. I am not suggesting that there has not been a considerable amount of attention given to the A74. A programme of improvements was initiated in 1973 when the Conservatives were in power. That programme has gone ahead. We have considered the whole problem of the A74 this year and the hon. Gentleman has acknowledged that a good deal of additional work is now going ahead on that road.
We cannot produce a dramatic solution which will solve the problems quickly. The most radical solution would be the conversion to motorway. I do not think that is justified at present in terms of the capacity of the road corn-pared with the traffic or in public expenditure terms. Such a solution would take several years to complete so it would not deal with the immediate problem. However, what improvements we can make we wish to proceed with as rapidly as possible.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned speeding and the enforcement of limits. I do not think there is any doubt that anyone who has used the road—I do not use it frequently but I have used it on occasions—knows that people drive at excessive speed on that road. That has been one of the great difficulties.
The hon. Gentleman also knows that there has been a considerable increase in police activity. In the four months starting July this year over 900 cases of speeding have been reported. That figure signifies two points—first, the frequency with which the speeding offences are being perpetrated on this road and, secondly, that there has been a good deal of police activity I was glad to hear that the hon. Gentleman say that from his personal

experience he had noticed an improvement because vehicles, especially lorries, were not speeding so much. I believe that the message has now got over to the users of the road that the road is being heavily patrolled and that anyone who speeds on that road is in danger of being picked up and fined, I hope severely. The police action is making some kind of an impact. Certainly the patrolling of the roads is something which we shall continue.
The A74—a long road in its own right—is between two motorways and the driver who is not sufficiently aware or the incompetent driver can be misled into thinking that he can drive at motorway speeds on it. The signposting system is being overhauled. Additional A74 repeater signs have been erected and 40 miles per hour roundels have been erected to remind lorry drivers of the 40 mph speed limit for their vehicles. A good deal of that work has already been done. One effect of the recent publicity is that no Scottish driver who reads Scottish newspapers should be in any doubt about the status of the A74. I believe that the message is getting through.
A number of other things are being done. Hard strips are being provided on both sides of each carriageway so that the kerbs can be moved outwards, thereby enabling vehicles to use the full width of the carriageway. About six miles have been completed in Dumfriesshire. One access has been closed. We are discussing with the Dumfries and Galloway Regional Council the possibility of closing other accesses and of lengthening lay-bys and acceleration lanes. These points were mentioned by the hon Gentleman.
Some of these matters take longer than people would like, but no road matters are susceptible of speedy solutions. Recently considerable lengths of the road were resurfaced because the long hot summer had aggravated normal wear and tear. That was particularly true on the Beattock bypass and on parts of the Lockerbie bypass. On the section from Blacklaw to Beattock village about four kilometres of central barrier are being installed. This work includes central hard strips. The barriers will be erected in the New Year. That is an area where there have been some tragic accidents.
I do not quite agree with the hon. Gentleman about central barriers generally. This is a complicated argument. It is rather frustrating when what appears to be an obvious solution to some of these accident problems is not accepted as such by the Department involved. However, a good deal of study is available on the efficacy of central barriers. It is by no means proven that in general circumstances they necessarily reduce the numbers of accidents. There is obviously a strong argument for central barriers at particular parts of the road. I have already mentioned one part of the road. A number of other areas are under study at the moment.
We recognise the importance of both these roads and that traffic on them has increased considerably in recent years. We also recognise that both roads, apart from their importance to Scotland as a whole, are of tremendous economic significance to the area. We recognise that both roads could be considerably improved.

There is no shortage of ideas for improving either of these roads. Many suggestions have been made tonight. We accept that many of the schemes which have been mentioned are desirable, although I do not accept everything suggested tonight as being necessary or desirable. However, I do not dispute that many of the points which have been made are valid in terms of improving the roads and the living conditions of the local community.
Many studies are already taking place and schemes are being prepared. At the end of the day it comes down to the question of finance. However, this part of Scotland will certainly have no less priority than other areas. Its problems are well understood. They have been ventilated on numerous occasions, including tonight. I assure hon. Members that their points will be considered, I hope sympathetically, by my noble Friend Lord Kirkhill.

Orders of the Day — SOCIAL SECURITY BENEFITS (ADMINISTRATION)

10.10 p.m.

Mr. Roger Sims: In drawing attention to the administration of social security and supplementary benefit, I wish to make it clear that it is not my intention to mount an all-out attack on what is colloquially known as the Welfare State. One of the factors which attracted me to Conservative politics was Winston Churchill's statement in Brighton in 1947 when he said:
The scheme of society for which we stand is the establishment and maintenaance of a basic minimum standard of life and labour below which a man or woman of good will, however old and weak, will not be allowed to fall".
I am asking whether the system which seeks to implement this philosophy is administered as effectively or efficiently as it could or should be. The cost of social security and supplementary benefits is running at about £134 million per week. That is the sum we are talking about.
A small proportion of that amount is devoted to administration. The bulk of it is paid in benefits. These benefits provide comfort and security for the retired, sick and the unemployed. But there is no doubt that there are abuses of the system. Some of them hit the headlines, but very many of them do not.
These abuses not only create general resentment against the whole scheme, but cast a cloud over the genuine recipients of benefits. Strong feelings are caused, for example, when benefits are paid to people only recently settled in this country. They often receive more than those in receipt of benefits who may have been contributing for them throughout their lives. There is a suspicion that the young and able-bodied are simply using the system. Those suspicions are confirmed when one finds that there are many apparently fit and able-bodied men and women attending pop festivals at the expense of social security.
Most hon. Members will have heard stories of the so-called unemployed doing odd jobs and getting a substantial income whilst collecting unemployment benefit and apparently living in a relatively affluent style. There are instances of

very large benefits being enjoyed by other people. For example, publicity has been given to the man with 13 children and receiving no less than £102 a week, and the man with 10 children and receiving benefits of £67 a week.
This sort of thing is objectionable to the ordinary taxpayer. It is offensive to those in our society who feel that they are inadequately assisted by the social security system—the disabled, the mentally ill, epileptics, the blind, the deaf, and, not least, the war widows, who were discussed in the House earlier this evening.
It was only the rules of order that precluded me from supporting my right hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) in suggesting that we should give far greater recognition to our war widows, who are appallingly treated compared with war widows in the EEC and Commonwealth countries. In his reply to that debate the Minister showed himself very sympathetic, but he gave no help at all to war widows, who now receive £17 a week. One can well understand what their feelings are when they read the sort of cases that I have just described.
What can be done about this situation? The real answer is to replace the whole system with the tax credits scheme, which my party is advocating and which in due course it intends to implement. Meanwhile, I suggest that the Government should completely overhaul the system. If anomalies and abuses such as I have outlined occur, something must be wrong somewhere. It cannot be beyond the wit of man to devise a scheme which is more just and which will ensure that adequate benefit goes to those who merit it, but that no one receives benefit which is excessive by any standard.
The Government should increase both the quantity and quality of investigation. I can understand the natural objection to officials prying into the private lives of individuals, but if money is being paid by the State—your money, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and mine—it is surely reasonable to ensure that those who receive it are fully entitled to it. Spot checks revealed that in over 40 per cent. of suspicious cases there had been overpayments. If there were more investigators, it is almost certain that more such cases could be revealed.
I am not advocating increased public expenditure. Previous experience suggests that investigators pay for themselves. I hesitate to use the words "disgraceful" or "outrageous" about what is, after all, a relatively small proportion of cases in a system which works well in many thousands of instances, but even a small proportion of £134 million a week comes to a very substantial sum.
There are abuses. We know it, the Government know it and the taxpayer knows it. He expects us to do something about it.

10.18 p.m.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I wish to raise a subject covered by Class XII vote 2 on a slightly different theme relating to non-contributory invalidity benefits, attendanace allowances and mobility allowances for blind persons. Recently, I was visited by the Edinburgh branch of the National League of the Blind and Disabled. Its main complaint was that the Government were too concerned with the cause of the disability and not sufficiently concerned with the nature and consequences of the disability.
Apparently, the cause of the disability determines the provision to be made by the Government, not the nature or extent of the blindness. For example, persons who lost their sight in the Armed Forces, or in a industrial accident, or for entirely different causes have exactly the same problems, but there are different levels of aid to help them meet those problems For example, if a young man loses his sight in a factory accident, he receives a pension, but I understand that a child who is born blind does not.
The branch asked me to do everything in my power to ask the Government to launch an investigation into the consequences of blindness so that the effects and not the cause are emphasised. It believes that an investigation of that sort would be an initial step towards recognising that blind and disabled persons should be recategorised and have a disability pension.
It costs a blind person more to live than it does a sighted person. In 1938 blind persons received approximately 50 per cent. of the national average wage. In 1975 they are receiving about 20 per cent., but that figure has been dropping steadily under the pressure of inflation.

They believe that they are not being properly categorised under the present rules. I understand that the United Kingdom and Ireland are the only countries in Europe with no disability pension. Australia gives blind people 10 times as much as we do. It is our hope and their hope that we shall not remain out of line with all EEC countries in this respect.
Blind people face additional expense. When they travel, they often need a guide, and travel may cost twice as much. They need telephones and assistance with writing letters. Blind people may spill things on their clothing and face extra laundry costs. They may have accidents through bumping and burns, and this, too, leads to more expense. There are heating costs: for safety, they need more expensive appliances. There is the difficulty of replacing breakages and doing home repairs, which often makes it necessary for them to call in expert assistance, especially when household services break down.
What impressed me most about the members of the group who came to see me was their tremendous resolve to stand on their own feet and do all they could to overcome their disability. They asked that the Government should be aware of the facts of their situation and the effects of their blindness. If the Minister can assure the House that he will launch an investigation into the effects of blindness, with a view to recategorising these people, and that he will look hard at the problem, that will be a Christmas message of good will to all those concerned.

10.22 p.m.

Mr. Robert Boscawen: I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Sims) has brought to the attention of the House the problem of the abuse of social security benefits and has made some suggestions for putting the matter right.
It would have been easy to come to this debate with a lot of statistics showing the most terrible cases of social security benefits being claimed falsely, or showing the hard cases of unfortunate individuals who just fail to meet the criteria for benefits and feel hard done by in comparison with others. It would be easy to raise emotions about this issue, which has caused a great deal of suspicion and


rumour. But we do not have emotional speeches in these debates very often—except when the Minister of State has no case. I hope that this will be a sensible debate. I intend to raise emotions hardly at all.
Everybody knows somebody who knows somebody who knows that his neighbour is falsely claiming benefit. Everybody knows somebody who knows somebody who is desperately in need of some benefit but who, because of some technical reason or because he did not make the necessary contributions, falls through the famous safety net. These rumours remind one of the stories of the Russians coming through England with snow on their boots. Nobody really knew whether they did.
We are living in a sphere of rumour, when a number of people feel betrayed by the Welfare State when they cannot get what they feel to be their due and when others get what they think is too much. It is bad for the system, for the morale of the country and for the incentive of people who want to work hard if they believe that others are slacking, basking in the sun, lying on the safety net, instead of using it for its proper purposes.
The disappointing thing is that we have few facts to go on. The Fisher Report of 1973 is generally agreed not to have been a very thorough investigation of abuse of the social security system. It was rather a superficial report, particularly Chapter 7, which went into the extent of the abuse and relied almost entirely on the cases that came before the courts and the inquiries that were made by the team of special investigators.
Nevertheless, although there is not a great deal of evidence, we are concerned about the findings in that chapter, particularly the inquiries by the special investigators, because of the comparatively large percentage of cases in which abuse was discovered. It is true that the special investigators were looking for trouble. It is true, as this dry report says in a remarkable sentence:
They have thus seen themselves as practical fishermen concentrating on the immediate catch rather than as marine scientists establishing by statistical research the probable extent of the shoals to be caught.

In other words, they were looking for the obvious sharks and not for the shoal of sprats. If hon. Members study the report, they will realise that there is room for a wide measure of concern about the situation.
I want to quote two sets of figures, first, the 1971 figure for the total number of cases investigated and, secondly, the number of allowances withdrawn or reduced. A total of 22,000 cases were investigated of which in 8,900 benefits were withdrawn or reduced, that is, 40 per cent. That shows a fairly large area of abuse in, admittedly, a small sample taken in one period several years ago.
However, the level of abuse is sufficiently high to cause concern and to lead people to inquire of the Minister of State what his Department is doing to overcome this problem. The right hon. Gentleman owes it to the whole country to be forthcoming on this matter. How much is known of the number of abuses? Do we need more special investigators, not so much to catch people or to snoop on them—no one likes that idea—but to re-establish confidence among ordinary people that the level of abuse is nothing like as high as they believe it to be?
We have all heard rumours of television sets or hi-fi equipment being carried into people's homes the morning after they have drawn supplementary benefit. It is very difficult to catch people, but the whole system suffers if improper practices are allowed to continue and if rumours continue to circulate without the Department taking much more trouble than it has to catch those who abuse the situation.
I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will reply in the spirit that I have endeavoured to bring to this debate. I want to improve the system. We want to remove the wave of cynicism about the whole social security system that exists today. Numbers of people believe that the system is corrupting the nation, encouraging too many young men not to work hard and too many individuals to skive off the State and get everything they can for the minimum of effort. There is a job of education to be done by the Department, and I hope that we shall serve some of that purpose tonight.

10.30 p.m.

Mr. Dudley Smith: I am sure that those who


have listened to his speech will echo the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Boscawen) in calling attention to the abuse and misuse which take place. I do not want to over-exaggerate it. I am glad to see the Minister of State on the Government Front Bench. Although I disagree with him politically, I know that he is a most conscientious man. He will know that this is a thorny problem for his Department and for my old Department, the Department of Employment.
There are many allegations and it is always extremely hard to substantiate them. From my experience at the Department of Employment I know that the investigators, although limited in number, do a good job. They have exposed some bad abuses and there has been valuable local publicity. However, the trend of abuse is on the increase.
This is not a party-political matter. It is of common concern to both major parties. It is very much in the interests of the Government of the day that they should stamp down as hard as they can on any kind of misuse of social security benefit.
We know that there are people who abuse the system and that it is extremely hard to prove it. That is particularly so in regard to unemployment benefit where the man unemployed is "moonlighting"—doing gardening, painting, or other things—and so adding substantially to the income that he receives from the State. I do not criticise the Department necessarily for not pursuing this abuse as strongly as it can. Like my old Department, the Department of Employment, and all Government Departments, it has limited resources. It does the best that it can in the circumstances. Nevertheless, there is this problem, and it is a growing problem. It is absolutely right that it should have been spotlighted tonight.
I want to talk briefly about an allied subject, although I must stress that I have no evidence whatever that this is a case of abuse or misuse. I raised the matter at Question Time the other day, and the right hon. Gentleman was good enough to reply, but, as I had not given him notice, I could not expect a full reply. Even though he may not have the answer tonight, I hope that he will be prepared to look into the matter. It crystallises the

extent of feeling of many members of the community.
There is a particular person in my constituency. I have no intention of mentioning this man's name or address. I have not revealed it, because I have had consultations with this constituent over a period of years. His name has been revealed by newspapers and on television, but until now I have never mentioned it in any of the interviews that I have given, or in any comment in the House.
This constituent is an immigrant. He has lived in this country for about seven years. As the Minister will know from recent publicity, this man receives £102 a week tax free in social security benefits. He is in his early or middle forties. He has 12 children—which is unusual, I admit. None the less, he is entitled, as far as I can gather, to the stipend which reaches him. But this has caused the most tremendous affront to hundreds of people in my constituency and to thousands of others.
These are people who are not just jealous. They work hard and, within the limits of their ability, some probably can earn only £25, £30 or £40 a week. They are people who strive hard to maintain a good standard of living and who do the best they can by the country of which they are citizens. They are people on low earnings. They are pensioners who have no income other than the State pension and perhaps some extra social security benefit. They are proud people who wish constantly to pay their way and not get into debt. They are sick if they find their electricity bill or the rates rising, and they come to me or to other right hon. and hon. Members to ask for guidance.
These are the people who write saying "Goodness gracious: here we are and the Government have not given us our extra £10 this year."—I do not criticise the Government necessarily for that—"We have had three rises in the pension, but the rising cost of living always eats its way into it. We have only so much money. Christmas is coming. In the New Year prices will carry on rising. But we read about one person who gets over £100 a week net in cash."
These are the people concerned, together with those who may be entitled to supplementary benefit but who find that


they are marginal cases and who argue the matter out with their social security authorities and who perhaps come to their Members of Parliament. Sometimes they are lucky and find that their claim is allowed; sometimes they are unlucky and it is disallowed. But, judged by the kind of standards the Minister and hon. Members on both sides apply, they will generally be regarded as having a fairly small income, as people who are up against it.
Because of this case, which has been highlighted by other people, there is reason to look into the rules and regulations governing the whole of our social security provisions. Unless we look into them, there is a great danger that the provisions will be made a mockery. More and more people, whichever party is in power, will say "This is wrong and immoral. We cannot go on like this." I hope that the Minister will examine the case, apart from any others, to make sure that nothing is wrong. I hope that he will determine that no man or woman should be entitled, through illness, through having too many children, or through other circumstances, to draw more than £100 a week in cash.
The man concerned has a wife and 12 children. I understand that a 13th child is on the way. His income is made up of invalidity benefit for him of £16.10 a week; benefit for his wife, £7.90; benefit for the first child, £6.50; and benefit for 11 children at £5 a week, making £55; and family allowances of £16.50. That is a total of £102.
This gentleman, whom I have met many times, is not satisfied with that sum. He applies for free school meals in the autumn, but his application was rejected by Warwickshire County Council, probably rightly, on the ground that his income was too high. I believe that the Minister and I would have had the same response if we had applied.
I understand that he also rejects any social work intervention from the Leamington office of the Warwickshire County Council social services department. The Warwickshire County Council gave the former Leamington Borough Council the mortgage guarantee of this man's house in October 1970, and the district council is now responsible. The arrears on the house stand at £441.56, if

the Press is to be believed, and the gentleman concerned is asking the county council to pay off those arrears.
With great respect to both Front Benches, this is cloud-cuckoo-land. I do not feel unsympathetic to this individual, an immigrant, who is probably one of the deprived people of our nation. He needs looking after, but not in a way that will exacerbate the situation and make so many others, who are trying to live within their means, sour about the State system. A prime principle with the State system should be that it is fair and that all people are receiving their dues.
This is no criticism of the Minister, because it is not his fault, but sometimes when one writes to the Department of Health and Social Security or the Department of Employment, the reply is "This is not really for us. We are passing this over to the other Department." These benefits go right across the board and it is important that the appropriate Departments should get together.
I do not say anything against this individual and his right under the rules as they stand to draw the sum that has been mentioned, but I ask the Minister of State, in the interests of all my constituents and in the interests of everyone in the country, to say that there should be an independant medical examination, if one has not already taken place.
There seems to be some dubiety as to whether this man is entitled to the payments that he has been receiving. He has been unemployed for six or seven years and, as far as I know, he is able and mobile. However, there seems to be some dichotomy of view between the various medical people. I hope that the Minister of State will ensure that this man is properly medically examined. If it turns out that he has an entitlement, let him receive his dues.
I urge upon the right hon. Gentleman that his Department considers the whole subject of social security benefits and all the various parts that make up the whole. I believe that for the good name of Parliament and of Government the time has come for a searching survey of the kind of help we need to give to people in distress.
I appreciate that these matters are difficult. I know that a man faces extreme difficulties if he is unable to work through


disablement and has a large family and many commitments. Very few of us do not meet cases where those concerned should not receive more money, but there are special cases which arise from time to time and which require special consideration. There are the scroungers and the moonlighters who cheat the system and there are those who operate under the rules as they exist and who get a prince's ransom compared with those who are working. There are others who do not receive their full entitlement.
In all the circumstances, I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will be able to tell us that he is prepared, through his Department, to have a new inquiry into the whole subject of social security benefits so that we are not long in a position in which certain individuals are spotlighted as receiving vast sums which exacerbate the current difficulties and make hundreds and thousands of people discontented. We recognise that social benefits are desirable. That is a view to which both sides of the House subscribe.

10.43 p.m.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: I am glad that I am not sitting on the Government Front Bench with the task of dealing with this case. All of us would recognise that it is an unusual case requiring special attention. It is not an example of the sort of person who normally receives social security benefits. The more often that is stated, the easier it will be to establish that only a small number of people are involved in cases of maladministration or fraud.
I think that there has been a change of attitude to social security benefits since the reforms of about nine or 10 years ago. Part of that change stems from the greater number of people who now receive social security benefits and supplementary benefits.
In an earlier debate, reference was made to some of the worst bottlenecks in the United Kingdom. I have to contend with one of the worst when I visit my constituency DHSS office. Perhaps the Minister of State will help in getting the A2 Rochester Way through the middle of Eltham by having some conversations with his colleagues. I should then find it much easier to get to the local office.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Does my hon. Friend want social security?

Mr. Bottomley: The difficulty is that there are too many people on means-tested benefits. The only answer is to have a Beveridge Plan. We have proved that we are not capable of dealing with the five areas of want as the system has developed.
Secondly, it is obvious that the new plan must contain the essential elements of the tax credit scheme.

The Minister of State, Department of Health and Social Security (Mr. Brian O'Malley): The hon. Gentleman and I are at one in believing that there are too many means tests and too many people on means-tested benefits. However, it is a delusion to believe that we can drastically and overnight reduce the number of people on means-tested benefits simply on the basis of cost. The hon. Gentleman will recognise that the social security pensions legislation will have the effect over a period of years of reducing the number of retirement pensioners on supplementary benefits.
The difficulty is that to introduce the type of tax credit scheme referred to earlier would mean a figure in public expenditure terms of well in excess of £2,000 million a year. Therefore, we can agree on the hon. Gentleman's proposition, but we should not assume that it is an easy or cheap matter, or something that can be achieved overnight, to bring about the kind of reduction in their numbers that both the hon. Gentleman and I agree is desirable in society.

Mr. Bottomley: I assume that that is not the Minister of State's last word on the subject and that he will be replying to the debate a little later.
The Minister has outlined—and I am grateful for his intervention—one of the two major areas that put so many people on social security. The first involves those with dependants—families and children—and it is a clear group for which Beveridge would have created a special benefit. We have debated Finer on earlier occasions, and I hope that we shall do so again. It is one group that should not be dealt with by conventional means-tested benefits. There should be a floor for one-parent families


above which one would top up in necessary cases.
The second group the Minister must have in mind is retired people. It is not just through tax credits that we should help to reduce the number of retired people on supplementary benefit, or through allowances or other forms of social security. We should also be able to help them by allowing more people to pay for their housing costs during their working lives.
One important reason why so many retired people need social security benefits lies in the fact that they have to meet housing costs. Owner-occupiers should be encouraged to meet their housing costs in the earlier years of their lives. This would make a significant difference to the number on social security. It should make it easier to detect abuse, and it should make administration simpler. Therefore, I repeat that it is not just a question of tax credit assistance.
We should be able to look at these matters in the round and to identify these groups. We should not seek to deal with the problem by making available more and more public funds, but we should make it possible for more people to make themselves better off by paying for things in the years when they can afford them.
One crucial factor is to reduce the level, frequency and incidence of high inflation rates. I am trying to look at the situation from my own point of view at the age of 31 and how I shall view the situation in 40 years' time. Provided that I do not retire from this House too soon, I hope to put by something for the years in my life when I shall be retired. We must also ask what will be the effect on this situation of an inflation rate of 25 or 30 per cent. If we can maintain the value of money across the generations, obviously many fewer people will fall into categories that need help.
We are often told that people are poorer now than they were in earlier periods. Certainly there are more people drawing supplementary benefits and on social security. However, I find it curious that when the rates of benefit are increased, the allocation rates suddenly rise, and one then sees the number of the

poor increase by 30 per cent. But surely we in this House are wise to that consideration. When the needs allowances rise, it does not mean that there are more poor people: it means that we are giving more help to the same people.
An example cited earlier in the debate shows the disincentive for people with large families to work. A father at work gets no financial help in respect of the first child and £1.50 for each subsequent child. The disparity between what people at work automatically receive for their children and what is received automatically, after application, by those not at work is far too great.
If the Minister of State's wife were at work, he and she could receive an extra £12 a week for two people under the Government's pay policy. But if the Minister had a brother, with a wife and two children, that family could receive only £6 a week for four people. So one sees the transfer of resources away from those people with family responsibilities.
This is seen at its worst now, but it has been going on for years and until there is a widespread recognition of this fact in the House and the country and by the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he is cooking up his Budget, the situation will not get any better and the number of people on social security will remain high.
The larger the number of people that DHSS offices have to deal with, the larger the number of frauds and mistakes. The incentive to work and to take a family above the levels of social security is crucial. The Government could do much more to resolve the present situation. There are too many means tests and they often do not reach those in greatest need.
The economic situation is putting more of the less able people off the list of those who have jobs and on to the list of those who do not. The number of people on social security is similar to the number of unemployed. Many people are receiving benefits when they should not be getting them and many people are counted as unemployed when they should not be. But there are many more people who are not receiving the benefits to which they are entitled and many potential workers who do not feature in the unemployment lists.
The European Parliament Working Document 382/75 is a motion for resolution tabled by my hon. Friend the


Member for Kensington (Sir B. Rhys Williams) concerning a Community social security system. I believe that this idea is worth while and could form part of a new Beveridge Plan. Can the Minister assure us that, if the Government consider it to be worth while, they will support it?
Until we get automatic incentives for people to get out of the social security system and automatic benefits for those who need them, we shall have a system that provides too many opportunities for fraud by a significant number of people—even though it is small in relation to the total number of recipients—and that creates so much distress and makes the lives of so many people miserable.

10.55 p.m.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Bottomley) will forgive me if I do not follow his argument. I respect his knowledge of the subject and the great care he has taken in studying so many aspects of social security. I certainly shall not follow him down the path to motherhood, save to declare an interest in three wonderful children.
This is a fascinating debate, and it is a pity that more hon. Members are not here to participate. The case referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for War, wick and Leamington (Mr. Smith) filled my postbag. Many indignant people asked me how it was possible for a person to draw £102 a week of taxpayers' money and to go on doing so week after week Representing as I do a basically low-wage area, I share the frustration and dissatisfaction that was expressed by many of my constituents.
I have also received letters from Merseyside, because I have spoken out on this subject. That brings me to another case that hit the headlines, a case in Merseyside concerning an Irish citizen. How is it possible for persons from the Republic of Ireland to receive social security payments virtually from the moment they arrive in this country, at the expense of our hard-pressed taxpayers? Those people have paid not one national insurance contribution or a penny in tax. Yet when they arrive here, they are housed, often as priority cases, and go

straight on to the top level of social security or supplementary benefit. The people of this country, who are among the most generous, just and reasonable in the world, need an explanation for this abuse of the social security system.
I accept that the number of people who abuse the system is small in comparison with the number who are entitled to benefit. Our system is basically sound and progressive. No hon. Member on either side of the House does not believe that assistance should be available to anyone who genuinely needs it. Our system is the envy of many countries, but it is abused by too many people. If 1 per cent. of all those who draw social security benefits abuse the system, that rate of abuse is far too high.
I have received 50 or 60 letters about the case mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington. I have also received many letters about the citizen from the Republic of Ireland who draws not £102 but £67 plus a week. Those figures do not include other benefits that are received. School meals, for instance, are not included.
Perhaps I should declare an interest as an ex-member of Warwickshire County Council. I fully support the decision of the council not to grant free school meals to the family concerned. At least the Warwickshire ratepayers can be assured that the county stands behind them in wanting to ensure that unnecessary expenditure is not incurred.
The Minister is known for his great humanity and for the great interest which he takes in this subject. Will he tell us how people are entitled to come to this country and to bleed the British taxpayers dry? That is what is happening in too many cases. It is a bad state of affairs and it is spoiling what is, in the main, an exceptional system of benefit to help those who genuinely need help.
I shall fight as hard as any Labour Member to ensure that my constituents get the benefits they deserve. It is a pity that more hon. Members have not participated in this debate, because this is an area of government where, with a little more thought and determination, a great many abuses which take place today could be rooted out. The system would then receive better and more wholehearted support from the British people, who are


paying the money to enable benefits to be provided.

11.0 p.m.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: I share my hon. Friend's concern about the fraud and abuse of the social security system to which they have drawn attention. I believe that the concern shown by all hon. Members who have taken part in the debate, from my hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Sims) to my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton), need in no way be interpreted as any hostility on their part to our welfare system. We are primarily motivated by a desire to improve the system. As my hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Bottomley) and other hon. Members reminded us, the primary purpose and role of our system is to alleviate the genuine poverty and hardship which is suffered, and to ensure that beneficiaries receive help to which they are entitled.
The national insurance system has basically a genuine insurance function. Our working people pay contributions throughout their lives in order to protect themselves against the risk of unemployment or temporary difficulty. They are fully entitled to draw those insurance benefits when the time arises.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Boscawen) mentioned, one of the difficulties is that sometimes genuine poverty is missed by our present system, or the complicated rules which we have about national insurance mean that a failure of contribution records deprives a deserving case of help. Therefore, we must bear in mind that under our present system some people do not receive the money which they should receive.
Some of the errors of the system deprive genuine people of assistance. Estimates vary about the amount of human error made in paying supplementary benefit, but it is normally calculated that between about 8 per cent. and 10 per cent. of supplementary benefit payments are made inaccurately, and that must include some under-payment of benefit to some people as well as overpayment to others. However, we are all agreed that sometimes—even now—money does not go to those who genuinely need and deserve it. What makes it an

even greater scandal is that at the same time considerable sums of money are going to those who do not deserve it and who are getting it either by fraud or mistake.
I believe that a great deal of money is going out of the system by fraud, abuse or rather peculiar payments. I know that one is not meant to say that there is a great deal of abuse because there is a fear among those who have a genuine concern for our welfare system that the public are frightened by that suggestion into believing that our welfare system has failures. That helps to put a stigma on the genuine claimants of benefit by implying that a large number of them are fraudulent.
In order to protect the worthy cases, it is usual to insist that only a tiny fringe of claimants are involved in fraud and abuse. I am not sure that we can maintain that view as complacently as we sometimes do. The public do not believe it and they are quite insistent that there is a great deal of fraud and abuse. Many members of the public one meets know perfectly well that there is a great deal of fraud and abuse.
The fact that people believe it takes place tends, at the moment, to put a stigma on genuine claimants. Often genuine claimants have almost a feeling of guilt when they have to apply for supplementary benefits, unemployment benefit, or the other benefit to which they are entitled. We could help the genuine claimants and take the stigma from them if only we could reassure the public that we were actively chasing and reducing the number abusing the system. In that way the public will be reassured once more that their money is going where they are perfectly prepared to see it go.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wells said that there was a regrettable lack of information. Therefore, I must accept that limitation on the statistics on which I base my assertion that there is a great deal of fraud and abuse. I base my assertion not only on public belief, which may be based on rumour, but on the fact that, although we have limited resources being devoted to detection, where detection goes on it is highly successful. When we have "fraud drives" carried out by special investigators, 40 per cent. of the suspicious cases into


which they look—cases which hard-pressed counter staff have not had the time to check—prove to be cases of over-payment needing correction. The high success rate of detection, where it goes on, indicates that if we had detection on a wider scale and more resources devoted to it we should uncover more fraud than we are aware of.
What also impresses me is that the fraud which is uncovered is often easy, straightforward abuse carried out with naive simplicity by claimants who have managed to get away with it because no one has had time—officials are trying to help the genuinely needy—to get around to catching them. The fact that a lot of fraud is easy and is not carried out with any great sophistication and yet escapes detection for a long time indicates to me that a great deal of abuse is going on. If so, we must endeavour to reassure the public about this matter. The public attitude is that they are prepared to pay for genuine welfare, but they are outraged by cases of fraud.
We have already heard about the gentleman in Warwick who is getting £102 a week. Mr. Patrick Keane, of Liverpool, has also graphically described his life style to the newspapers. The News of the World—that great journal of our times—has on this occasion performed a valuable service by devoting a lot of effort recently to a series of articles which it describes as discovering "the scrounger of the week". We must give credit to the News of the World for devoting some of its resources to seeking out fraud and abuse. It has discovered spectacular and blatant cases of abuse. Its readers have every right to be outraged when they read of such cases.
These cases of abuse are an affront to people who work and pay taxation and national insurance contributions to assist those whom the News of the World is discovering and interviewing. Such cases are also an affront to the needy who look to our welfare system for help. I refer to war widows, to whom reference was made earlier by my right hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Page), to the disabled and to others who receive only very modest welfare help.
The Minister must get down to the brass tacks of what can be done about this problem. He must tighten up the system and reassure the public that the

scroungers are being caught and that the money is being paid to genuinely needy people for whom we all have sympathy.
There are two distinct categories of case between which we must begin to distinguish. The first is the cheat—the claimant who, by criminal fraud, gets more money than he would be entitled to receive if he were not breaking the rules. The second category—my hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Smith) has a classic example in his constituency—concerns the honest claimant who is getting money to which he is entitled and who is not breaking any law, but where the system is mad. This is where more money is made available to a particular category through the social security system than the unfortunate claimant could conceivably get by working and trying to provide for himself.
My hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, West said that the disincentive was overwhelming and that the outrage to members of the public who could not earn that amount of tax-free money by honest endeavour was considerable. The main problem with persons in the cheating category—the straightforward criminal case which results in a slightly increased number of prosecutions each year—is detection. I hope that the Minister can reassure us about that. It is a question of putting more effort, not particularly in terms of public expenditure, into the investigation of cases of abuse.
Following the previous Government's commissioning of the Fisher Report, there has been a steady increase in the number of special investigators employed by the Department. In answer to a Question, the Minister said that there were now 381 special investigators. In reply to a supplementary question of mine, when I urged that the number should be doubled, he said that there were public expenditure implications to be considered. There is no public expenditure involved. A reply to a question on 1st December revealed that special investigators saved money. The cost of investigation is a little less than half the amount saved. Will the Government therefore make a target of doubling the number of investigators? I recognise the training problems, but could this be the target?
There are problems with the work-shy who have no intention of working and


who are content to rely on the system. I accept that most of the long-term unemployed are a social problem because of their inadequacy and deserving of help not stricture and that the genuinely idle are a tiny fringe minority. One must also be very careful, when there is mounting and continuing genuine unemployment, that the large numbers of decent hard-working people receiving unemployment benefit at the moment are not suddenly harassed.
What are employment review officers doing to try to catch the limited number of work-shy people? Are they stepping up their work and are they calling in for interview an increased number of dubious claimants who seem to have been unemployed for a long time? It has been found that about 40 per cent. of those called for interview stop drawing supplementary benefit either before their interview or shortly afterwards. To get on to them seems to be enough. Can we therefore have more interviews?
Changes in employment policy, the setting up of the new Employment Services Agency, for instance, may have created additional difficulties. Fortunately, the old Labour Exchanges have gone, but I have the feeling that our new agencies are a little more reluctant to send difficult customers to an employer, because they feel that that might give them a bad reputation and they prefer to send their better clients to a potential employer. Therefore, the pressure on the work-shy might have been reduced.

Mr. Dudley Smith: If a man who is not too advanced in years has been unemployed for several years and is not bedridden or obviously disabled, should there not be an independent medical review of that person's case?

Mr. Clarke: There should be a medical review. There is power to call for one, but the number of reviews remains static and there is an argument for increasing them. The employment review officers should also use their skill to find jobs and talk to the man about why he has not managed to get a job. But there are instances where a man says that the job offered to him is not suitable, not on the right bus route, or that he cannot stand the hours, and the Department should be less reluctant to use its powers to stop benefit in these instances.

Mr. O'Malley: The hours in the House are not always very good. I am not clear what the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Smith) is suggesting. Where there is an invalidity pensioner or a man who has not been in work for a long period, he can be asked to appear periodically before the medical officer of the Department. It is not clear whether the hon. Members for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) and for Warwick and Leamington are asking for something different, but perhaps they are overlooking that this kind of examination takes place.

Mr. Clarke: I was agreeing that it happens—that was my response before—but it is done in only about 5,000 cases a year, if I have the right category of claimant. That figure has been static for years: if anything, it has gone down a little. It is difficult to arrange these medical reviews, but there is a case for increasing the present number. I hope that the Minister will consider the prospects for calling more people in.
I return to the methods by which people abuse the system and the detection of them. Undisclosed earnings remain the major problem—the man who is "moonlighting", who has a job that he is not disclosing to those from whom he is drawing benefit. I suspect that at least one of the highly publicised cases recently—the one on Merseyside—was just such a case, considering the man's life style, even compared with the level of benefit he received.
This is one of the most difficult abuses to find. Fisher made many recommendations and indicated the fields of employment where it was easiest to go in for undetected employment over and above the disregard levels. The abolition of insurance cards may have made the whole situation much more difficult. Now that there are no national insurance cards, it is much easier to keep employment secret, not to reveal to the employer, for instance, that benefit is being drawn, and still find it easy to draw benefit while in work. Disregards have only risen to £4 a week—I give the Government some credit for that—but there is still an incentive for people with modest incomes above that level to try to avoid disclosing them.
I couple this with my request that the number of special investigators be


doubled. This is an area where they must step up their inquiries. Even the Fisher Report, with its rather tame conclusions, concluded that there was no doubt that in this area many other cases remained undetected. Although the figures of detection are rising slowly, they are still well below what goes on, particularly in the building industry, where it is so easy to get benefit on the side while working on a building site.
Sick pay is another area of abuse which has long concerned people interested in this field, but where, I accept, it is difficult to do much. But, again, this Government must consider beginning to do something more about it. The figures for claimants of sick pay, particularly for short periods of sickness, continue to increase. It is not that the health of the nation is deteriorating: it is that sick pay is easy to abuse and is widely abused.
The doctor's certificate has proved to be very little protection against abuse; and very few doctors would deny that. Doctors normally hate the process of having to give these certificates. They find it impossible to refuse their own patients. They are in a difficult position when it comes to declining to give a certificate to a man who insists that he will not go to work. It is no adequate protection for public funds at all.
Is there any possibility of a second certificate being required? That would require taking the views of the medical profession into account. The doctors are reluctant to have other doctors dealing with their patients, however much they dislike the certification system, but a fur-their certificate from an independent doctor would be valuable.
But our main defence is the regional medical officer. Would it not be possible to have far more cases of recurrent claims for sickness benefit referred to them? These officers handle the supplementary benefit claims that my hon. Friend spoke about, and they are doing a steady 5,000 a year of those. Could the regional medical officers handle more cases of doubtful claims for sick benefit? As one is dealing with comparatively short periods of sickness, has the system of interview by these officers been speeded up so that they can properly deal with a man who keeps having two or three weeks

off work for comparatively trivial or unexplained reasons?
I have spent more than enough time, perhaps, on the ways in which people abuse the system. I want to seek an assurance that more effort and resources will be put into detection, which is the important point.
The second category of case to which I referred is that where the system itself is mad. More and more, one finds that it is a great disincentive to people, particularly with children, to find work. Large tax-free benefits go to some startling cases. The great problem is the relationship between those untaxed short-term benefits at their generous levels, with particularly generous provision for children, and the low tax thresholds and heavy tax penalties on low earnings.
Unfortunately the family man going to work has to pay tax out with one hand even when he is drawing the family income supplement to raise his earnings with the other. If he increases his earnings, he loses his rates rebate, his rent allowance, and his means-tested benefits. If he is on benefit, it is tax-free. The tax thresholds are now so low that for anyone with a family of any size and possessing a low degree of a skill which might make him valuable on the job market it does not pay to work.
One of the few things said by one of the News of the World "scroungers of the week" which made any sort of logic was the statement of a Mr. Hallett who was receiving £48·90 for himself and his five children. He said:
I wouldn't look at a job that paid less than £50 a week after deductions and without overtime.
Others can work for less than the Government will hand out if they like. More fool them. They want their heads examined.
On that he is right. Mr. Hallett was an unattractive character in many ways, but if he is getting £50 tax-free from the State, he cannot be criticised for refusing to take a job paying less than £50 a week after deductions. To do so would mean lowering the living standards of his family. After taking into account the costs of getting to work and other costs, he needs to be offered a substantial income before he can even contemplate going to work.
The situation, however, has grown even worse. We have no lower rates


of income tax and everyone goes straight into the standard rate. There are 50,000 people in work who would be worse off when they increase their earnings as for every extra £1 they lose their FIS, rate rebate and rent allowance. But they are only the tip of the iceberg, and, as the Child Poverty Action Group pointed out, the working poor are getting poorer all the time and the system is producing more and more people who find themselves driven into social security where they are paid more than if they stay at work.
The long-term answer is the tax credit scheme. I thought from his intervention a moment ago that the Minister of State was accepting the idea as a long-term aim while saying that it was a bit expensive. We have argued the figures, but figures are debatable. It seems to depend entirely on the level at which the system is established and when it is introduced.
Given that the tax credit system would be administratively difficult to set up, in the meantime the taxation of short-term benefits would be a great improvement and the Minister will no doubt say that it is impossible. But, as that advice has been given year in, year out, I believe that it should be re-examined searchingly.
The overseas claimants keep coming in to cloud the picture. I am anxious not to exaggerate on this score. People get excited when someone from overseas turns out to be one of these cases, even an honest case such as the constituent of my hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington. There are particular problems here. I do not think that they arise with Commonwealth citizens. It is not possible to show greater dependence on the social security system among them than among the native English population. Strict immigration control prevents them coming in to abuse the system on any scale. The EEC is said to give rise to loopholes, but these people come to look for work and they do not have an unlimited right to our social security system.
The problem arises with the Irish. I tread here with particular care—not just out of deference to the Minister of State's ancestry. This is a difficult time to raise

this problem, because one does not want to start arousing any anti-Irish feeling in this country. The Irish resident community are hard-working and well-established members of the community. They give rise to no more problems than anyone else. But they are in a special category because of the totally free access of Irish citizens to this country.
It goes back to the old treaties, to the Ireland Act 1949, to the common travel area of the Immigration Act 1971. It is militarily impossible and politically undesirable to close the border, and that means completely free access both to this country and to our social security system for Irish citizens. No one wants to start severing good relations with our Irish neighbours and all these arrangements are reciprocal.
However, it raises particular problems in the social security area. An Irish national is the only foreign resident who can come here for the express purpose of getting social security benefits. He or she can legally and honestly move in and, having found somewhere to live, begin to claim social security benefits in full. There is no power whatever to stop that.
In those circumstances it is sometimes remarkable that there are still 3 million residents in Eire. A deserted Irish wife with a large family is probably best advised to raise the boat fare from friends and relatives. Once she has a roof over her head here, she can at once draw supplementary benefit and continue to do so for as long as she likes.
At some stage—perhaps politically this is far from the ideal time, given other political problems in Ireland—we must look again at the basis of free access to and from the Irish Republic and decide whether treating Irish nationals as British subjects for most practical purposes and keeping open free access need necessarily also mean total access to social security on this scale. It is available to no other foreign nationals. I wonder whether the Dublin Government would object to a change in practice here whereby officers could suggest that the fare back home might be offered to a family which looked like arriving and taking up full-time residence. That might dispense with the obligation to pay further social security benefit thereafter.
I could talk about cases of the kind raised by my hon. Friend the Member


for Warwick and Leamington, especially the huge amount given in that case. Although the £102 is outrageous, the figure is misleading. As I understand the situation, the £102 includes family allowances. It is true that the working residents of Warwick and Leamington also receive family allowances, as does this nonworking resident, so that in making comparisons between the two, we have to deduct the family allowance and look at the remaining income.

Mr. Dudley Smith: What my hon. Friend says is quite true, but very few of my constituents, who number between 82,000 and 84,000, receive £102 net per week.

Mr. Clarke: Just so. Very few constituents, whether they work or not, receive so much in family allowances as this particular gentleman.
We abolished the wage stop, which might have applied in this particular case, because so few cases were involved and because it was causing hardship to some large families. Have we erred too far in the other direction? Consideration should be given to a possible ceiling on benefits in cases of this kind.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Is it not worth drawing attention to the fact that what the gentleman in Leamington draws in a year is not far short of that which a Member of Parliament gets by way of remuneration? Many people believe that Members of Parliament are paid too much because of the part-time nature of their work. Here is someone who is paid far too much and who does not work at all.

Mr. Clarke: I do not know what rate of tax my hon. Friend pays on his parliamentary salary, but most of us are paid substantially less than the gentleman in Leamington in take-home terms.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: His is tax-free.

Mr. Clarke: Just so. My hon. Friend will find, on reflection, that he is paid substantially less than that resident of Warwick and Leamington.
We have, quite rightly, abolished the wage stop and we have worthily improved the children's benefits. We now have to examine whether this kind of absurdity

was what we had in mind when we modified the system.
I hope that in his reply the right hon. Gentleman will deal with as many of these points as possible and that he will not react, as people have in the past, to comments about fraud and abuse, and insist that they are over-done, unnecessary and should not be made. I hope that he will not be complacent in dealing with this problem.
We are in no way complacent. We set up the Fisher Committee to inquire into this subject when we were in office. We acted on most of its recommendations. However, we remain dissatisfied with the progress that has been made so far.
The time has come for a drive to be made on fraud and abuse in the welfare system so that the public can be reassured that their national insurance contributions and their taxation are going mainly to worthy recipients.

11.29 p.m.

The Minister of State, Department of Health and Social Security (Mr. Brian O'Malley): As a number of those who have spoken tonight have participated with me in debates on social security and pension matters throughout the whole of 1975, and indeed in previous years, I wish them and all other hon. Members now present, including yourself, Mr. Deputy Speaker, a merry Christmas.
My constituency of Rotherham is a steel and coal town where men work in extremely arduous conditions in coal mines, steel works, and heavy engineering. I know that the people in my constituency are willing to pay, through taxation and contributions, for good levels of retirement pensions and of benefit for those who are sick, ill, or chronically disabled and genuinely unable to get employment. They are not prepared to tolerate those who seek to abuse the system, to scrounge, to avoid working for a living, those who prefer to take the soft option.
The hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Smith) said that we were not discussing a party political matter. I have spoken for the Labour Party on social security matters since 1969. I have heard successive Ministers in three Governments—two Labour and one Conservative—describe the difficulties of the Department of Health and


Social Security and the attempts it makes to combat abuses of the system by every possible means.
I think that at the outset I should set out the Government's general attitude on this matter. I have greatly appreciated the manner in which hon. Members have put the problems fairly and impartially. No hon. Member has attempted to make party political capital. We must operate a system which does not deter the honest claimant. We do not want there to be a situation in which people will not claim supplementary benefit because of the way in which the system is administered.
I come from an area where the tales are still rife of officials insisting in the early part of the twentieth century that, for instance, a person who possessed a piano should sell it before he could claim any assistance money. There are long memories in the mining valleys about the operation of means-tested benefits in past decades.
Successive Governments have agreed that means-tested benefits exist as of right: this is built into our social security system. Successive Governments have also been concerned about the problem of take-up. It is still a cause for anxiety that there are substantial numbers of retirement pensioners who are entitled to supplementary benefit—admittedly, in many cases it might be only a small sum—but who prefer not to claim it. As the hon. Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Bottomley) said, the aim of the Government in the closing decades of the twentieth century should be to push back as fast and as much as possible the area of means-testing.
Not only retirement pensioners but some of the unemployed and other younger people have paid contributions and taxes, and having thus made a contribution to society, resent the fact that their benefits are means tested and that small resources that they have been able to build up must be taken into account at a time when they most need help. It is clearly important that in the operation and administration of the system we take into account the interests of the overwhelming majority of claimants and run the system efficiently, but also humanely and in a manner not calculated to deter people from applying for and receiving their entitlement.
It is also the case that we must deal firmly and effectively with abuse. Abuse discredits the Welfare State. The hon. Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Sims) said that he was not attacking the Welfare State, and that was echoed by other hon. Members. I accept that and subsequent statements in the spirit in which they were made. It is essential to do everything possible to combat and minimise the area of abuse of the social security system because, as I said a moment ago, such abuse brings the Welfare State into disrepute.
If hon. Members were to ask me whether I believe that it is possible and practicable for a system to be administered in such a way that any Minister under any Government could stand at this Dispatch Box and say that abuse had been completely stamped out, I should have to answer that I did not believe that it was possible. I believe that when one is dealing with the large number of claims with which my Department deals weekly, there will always be the tiny minority who will try to abuse the system. That is the cost that has to be accepted of operating the Welfare State.
At the same time, however, one has to ask how we can most effectively minimise abuse of the Welfare State so that it and the system are not discredited, so that we do not have widespread resentment amongst taxpayers. If taxpayers and people who pay contributions into the national insurance system believe that their money is being spent on genuine cases, they will pay, but if they believe that people are getting away with murder within the system, there will be resentment, and if that happens, it becomes infinitely more difficult for any Government to attempt to build up the resources of the social security system to give further help to those who need it most. It is also important to minimise abuse because every pound, or one hundred pounds, or thousand pounds or million pounds distributed to people who should not receive the money means that there are fewer resources available to distribute to those in genuine need.
We have to put this matter into context. We all know that there are tides in this affair when there is a great upsurge of accusations and statements about abuse and scrounging on the social


security system. We are nearing high tide on this matter now. Those who have detailed knowledge of these matters, and Members of Parliament generally, have a responsibility to put the matter into context. That does not mean turning one's back on the problem. It does not mean that one should be complacent. I should be the last person to be complacent about that kind of thing, because I know too well the attitude of my voters. Indeed, a Minister who was complacent about the misuse of public resources would not be fit to stand at the Dispatch Box.
What needs to be said is that the Department deals with about 18 million claimants a week, and about 500,000 new claims a week. I think that there is no argument but that the overwhelming majority of the payments to 8 million retirement pensioners, to the 4½ million families in receipt of family allowances, and payments to 500,000 widows are genuine payments to people who are properly receiving their entitlement.
The hon. Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) mentioned sickness benefit. What is noticeable is that in the social security systems of the developed world, and particularly of Western Europe, there has been an upward movement in the number of short-term claims for sickness benefit per thousand of the population in recent years. Perhaps one of the reasons for that is that in the past certainly some people went to work when they were not fit to go to work but did so because of the economic pressures of earlier times, which were far more difficult than we have seen in the 'fifties and 'sixties and, so far, in the 'seventies. We must take that into account. Nevertheless, I am as concerned as the hon. Gentleman about abuse of sickness benefit.
We all know the problems for local offices when fortnight holiday periods come, and we know the controls which need to be operated by these offices, which are now far tighter than ever before. I understand the hon. Gentleman's point. I have a note of the other points that he has raised, too.
On the four main points, I am very pleased to have his views in some detail on the subject. The hon. Gentleman will recall that I wrote to him on 16th December 1974 and on 4th August 1975. I

quote from my letter to him of 16th December last year:
I attach great importance to the prevention of fraud and abuse, and we should be happy to consider any specific suggestions for improving the Department's present performance. Or, if you would like to discuss the subject I should be very willing to arrange it.
That offer was made in December 1974. It stands this evening. I am pleased that this evening the hon. Gentleman has been able to put to me, after my invitations of a year ago and about six months ago, his considered views on the situation. I say that kindly; it is Christmas time.
In 1974 my Department uncovered more fraud than ever before and prosecuted more cases than ever before. With the Department of Employment, we established 40,000 cases of fraud and there were 13,700 prosecutions—nearly twice the number of prosecutions that occurred in 1970—and we secured convictions in about 98 per cent. of those cases.
I thought that the hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Boscawen) was unfair to the Department—although not to me—in one respect. I do not make a lot of it. He said that he hoped that we would take more trouble on these matters than we had in the past. Perhaps I may say to him—defending his own Government in doing so—that I believe that the previous Conservative Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph), took very seriously indeed the problems of abuse within the system. The hon. Gentleman would be taken to be criticising his own previous Secretary of State if his remarks were quoted out of context. Perhaps on reflection the hon. Gentleman will think that they were not reflecting the situation accurately and were not fair to the previous Secretary of State.
However, certainly we are building up our resources in the Department in order to counter and deal with fraud and abuse. This has taken place under successive Governments. But there is one important development that has taken place within the last six months and to which I attribute considerable importance. During the course of this year, we have set up a specialist branch at headquarters to tackle the problem of social security fraud and abuse in a unified and systematic way by looking at every aspect of the Department's work.
I met the principal officials connected with that specialist branch within a brief period of its being set up. I was very impressed, indeed, by their work and I immediately said that their numbers should be doubled. Already, within the space of a few months, they have proved their worth. What they are doing is, for example, looking at local office and regional performance before making comparisons between the performance on fraud and abuse detection as between local offices and as between regions.
The officials concerned are adopting the different techniques of examination, including fraud drives, to which the hon. Member for Rushcliffe referred, and the use of special investigators. They are co-operating with the police, and have already secured major successes against organised criminals. In one case alone they helped the police put a group of individuals in gaol for up to seven years. I do not want to say too much about this type of specialist organisation, of which I have high hopes, because there are security problems. I believe that it is an important development within the Department.
During the past year, 162,000 people claiming unemployment benefit were interviewed by the UROs, and about half went off benefit as a result. That process is continuing, although there are inevitable difficulties at a time of high levels of unemployment. As one case among a number has been referred to in particular, I wish to say something about it.
As a Minister, I am properly bound by the rules of confidentiality on the benefits payable in an individual case. This has been accepted by successive Governments. But detailed statements have been made in the Press as a result of open interviews with the people concerned. It is not for me, within the rules of confidentiality, to discuss the details of an individual's claim, but I think that, in view of the public concern generated by such cases, it in no way represents a breach of that confidentiality to mention significant changes in the general circumstances of a claimant, without discussing any personal aspects of the case. I think that the House has a right to expect Ministers to say something on such matters.
In the case of Mr. Patrick Keane—

Mr. Dudley Smith: Those of us who have been in office understand the difficulties, but there is great public concern. I deliberately did not mention this man's name and address, but others have revealed it. That is not my fault. Having heard the genuine concern expressed in the House tonight, will the Minister look into the case in some detail? If he wants further particulars, I shall let him have them. Will he see that, in the public interest, the matter is examined to make sure that the rules are being observed?

Mr. O'Malley: I have a standing instruction within the Department that when a case is reported in the national Press, I should have a report on it on the file in front of me as a matter of urgency, because I have a responsibility to examine such cases.
I understand that Mr. Keane has reasonable prospects of employment in the very near future, and that if he is not successful in obtaining that employment, a place in a rehabilitation centre will be available to him by 6th January.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: One does not want to go further in Mr. Patrick Keane's case, but will the Minister confirm that if a claimant refuses a rehabilitation place for no apparent reason, having previously had offers of employment, that would be likely to affect his entitlement to benefit? What powers has the Minister in the event of someone's refusing to take up such a course?

Mr. O'Malley: I should make it plain that I do not have those powers. That is a matter for the Supplementary Benefit Commission. I understand that Mr. Keane has said that he is prepared to accept a place in a rehabilitation centre if he is unsuccessful in finding employment by 6th January. I am not discussing individual cases but answering the hon. Gentleman's question in general terms. If a man refused to accept such a place, the Commission has the power to take the case before the appeal tribunal. The tribunal—

Mr. John Stonehouse: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May we know under what authority the public seats have been cleared?

Mr. Peter Bottomley: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it that


the public are being moved towards the front row?

Mr. Speaker: I am not aware that anything untoward is happening. I shall consider the point that has been made.

Mr. O'Malley: We have probably driven them out, Mr. Speaker.
The Commission can take a case to the appeal tribunal and the tribunal has the power to give the instruction that unless the individual accepts a place at a reestablishment centre, his supplementary benefit shall cease to be payable.
Hon. Members will know that there was a considerable increase in the number of special investigators between 1969–75. They carried out 27,000 investigations in 1974. I understand that the principal practical constraint upon the number of special investigators is that we require highly trained people. They are made up entirely of volunteers.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I understand that nothing abnormal happened. The rearrangements which took place were for the convenience of those who attend upon our needs.

Mr. O'Malley: I shall consider all the detailed points that have been raised on the anatomy of administration.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: I promise that this will be my last intervention.
The right hon. Gentleman knows that we have made a special point about special investigators. Is he saying that there is no ceiling on the number who are employed and that the only restraint is the recruitment of adequate volunteers and their training? When he talks of accepting in principle a doubling of the inspectorate, does the right hon. Gentleman accept that in principle if it proves possible to recruit and train that number of volunteers?

Mr. O'Malley: No, I am not saying that. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that within the Civil Service—and this is a matter for the Civil Service Department—there is an establishment that restricts the number of civil servants that we can have in a particular job. There is an agreed establishment within the Government. I am saying that, at the hon.

Gentleman's request, I shall consider the whole question of special investigators.
Reference has been made to special drives. This is a matter on which we must be guided by the specialist branch that we now have at headquarters. We shall be guided as to the most effective ways of using the staff that we have.
I turn to one or two points mentioned by the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington. One of the problems rests with a tiny number of very large families. This is the difficulty. The amounts of money are high for two reasons. The first relates to the fact that short-term benefits are tax-free. It has been estimated that one would require thousands of extra civil servants to make those short-term benefits subject to tax. Successive Governments have faced this problem, but I assure the hon. Gentleman that I have examined in considerable detail the case to which he referred. If the hon. Gentleman would like to approach me on a constituency basis, I shall be pleased, within the bounds of confidentiality, to discuss the matter with him.

Mr. Dudley Smith: I am grateful to the Minister and I know that he will look into the matter with great care. I appreciate what he is doing. I agree with him that the problem lies in a small number of cases, but does he not agree that such cases are an affront to thousands of hardworking people on comparatively low incomes?

Mr. O'Malley: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. The problem arises from two causes. The first relates to the non-taxability of short-term benefits. The second relates to the low rate of child or family allowances compared with the situation in some European countries.

Mr. Boscawen: I agree with the Minister, but does he not agree with me that it is a matter of presentation? If a large family is receiving £5,000 a year in benefits, that family in this context is equal to three-and-a-half "normal" families. If one divides the total figure by three or three-and-a-half, it appears a little more reasonable?

Mr. O'Malley: I understand that point, but I am saying that it was agreed by both major parties that we should abolish the wage stop since it was affecting a tiny


number of individuals and causing an enormous amount of irritation in the administration of the system. I am going no further than saying that these problems arise with only a tiny number of families who have large numbers of children, as in the case of the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Dudley Smith: Since all this is going on the record, I should confess to being the father of three children, not of 12.

Mr. O'Malley: I am sorry. I should have referred to the children of the hon. Gentleman's constituent.
We are making detailed inquiries into the other two cases that have received Press coverage. I can tell the House that in one case Mr. McDermott was interviewed on Monday. He denied categorically earning while drawing benefit. He also denied saying what was attributed to him by the News of the World. He has also sought legal advice on the matter. In view of what I have said about confidentiality, I do not think I can refer any further to the case.
I turn to the broader issues. Tax credit was mentioned by the hon. Member for Woolwich, West. If we are to push back areas of means testing, we must be selective. If we are to be selective, we can be selective by means tests or by adopting the group method suggested by the hon. Member. He has suggested one way forward. It is not the only way of furthering social policy, but it is one of the considerations open to us for the future. I have not seen the European Parliament document to which the hon. Member referred. Apparently it was written by the hon. Member for Kensington (Sir B. Rhys Williams) and I suspect it contains his ideas, which we have heard on a number of occasions in the House. However, I shall look at the paper.
The hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton) spoke movingly and persuasively about the blind. As disability policy has developed within the two major parties during the 1970s, we have been increasingly concerned with a whole range of disabilities which previously received no attention and with the disability itself rather than its causes.
A person who suffers an accident at work can be covered by industrial injury

and compensation schemes while a person who has an accident outside work is in a totally different position. The Pearson Commission has this matter under review and we should await its report before deciding how to move. Conventional thinking in this country on disability benefits, including help for the blind, is evolving slowly.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Could the Minister say a few words about Irish citizens coming here and claiming social security? This matter has aroused a great deal of interest.

Mr. O'Malley: I have no doubt that the hon. Member and I could have a lengthy quarrel on this matter—the only intemperate language in the debate was used by him—but it would not be useful for me to do that. I do not think I should pursue the line which the hon Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) and, much more cautiously, the hon. Member for Rushcliffe began formulating on relations with Southern Ireland. I am not looking for a confrontation, though I enjoy confrontations as much as anyone else, and I think that the hon. Members should consult their Shadow Cabinet colleagues with responsibility for Northern Ireland and Home Office matters to see where they are going. The hon. Members were moving into very deep waters tonight and enormous consequences could follow. If they want to deal with this subject, they must say how they want the situation changed. I know the attitude of the hon. Member for Macclesfield, but that has never been the attitude of the Conservative Front Bench, whether in office or opposition.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: The Republic of Ireland is the only country within the Community that has a worse social provision than we have. I refer the Minister to Document No. 382/75, which deals with the Community social security system. The answer must come from getting the same high social provision throughout the whole European Community, which includes all of Ireland and Great Britain.

Mr. O'Malley: It is not true that all European Countries have a much bigger provision than we have. For example, in some parts of Western Europe the provision of health care for the self-employed is inferior.
It would be easy for me to react to the implications of what the hon. Members for Macclesfield and Rushcliffe said about Southern Ireland, but it would not be helpful to do so. By pursuing that I should not be doing the House, the Opposition, or the Irish dimension a service.
I close by thanking the hon. Member for Chislehurst for giving us the opportunity of this debate and for the manner in which he discussed and laid open this subject. I also thank hon. Members for their useful contributions and suggestions. I undertake that all the suggestions made on the administration of the system will be fully considered.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: Before the Minister sits down, may I refer to his observations on the official Opposition policy on Irish citizens? This is a politically difficult time to do something about it, for reasons which go far outside social security policy. Will the Minister explore the possibility of discussions with the Dublin Government—with whom we have a reciprocal agreement on social security—on the possible practice within the treaties and arrangements for dealing with people who travel to this country for the express and only substantial purpose of taking advantage of our social security system? That need not cause problems about the Irish dimension in more significant areas of policy.

Mr. O'Malley: If the Opposition, after detailed consideration—not at ten minutes past twelve in the morning—have any proposals or suggestions, they would be better put in writing from the Leader of the Opposition to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. I ask the House and the hon. Gentleman to be cautious about dealing with a major subject with serious implications. I note the views which have been expressed, but I should be doing the House and the country a disservice by jumping in and reacting off the cuff to remarks which have been made about the free movement of Southern Irish citizens in and out of this country.

Orders of the Day — PLANNING PROCEDURES

12.9 a.m.

Mr. John Stonehouse: The subject to which I wish to refer has given a great deal of concern in and around my constituency and in many other parts of the country. It is referred to in Early-Day Motion No. 80, which I put on the Order Paper on 10th December and which was entitled "Weakness of Planning Procedures". In that motion reference is made to the opening of hypermarkets without appropriate planning permission, and that is the subject I wish to go into in some detail.
Before I do so, I should like to make some general comments. When winding up the last debate the Minister of State, Department of Health and Social Security referred to the arduous conditions in which many of his constituents work. I think that many hon. Members who come from industrial constituencies could parallel his description. Certainly my constituents in Darlaston and Willenhall are working in very bad conditions, but their work is producing a great deal of wealth for Britain. The tragedy is that the wealth is not being ploughed back into improving their environment.
The area which I represent is called the Black Country. It is called the Black Country for a reason—it is extremely black. It is an area which was blighted by the Industrial Revolution and it has not had enough money spent on it in the past half century to correct the evils that were done to what was once a very beautiful part of the country. The position has not improved in the past 20 years. In fact, it has got worse. Unfortunately, towns like Darlaston, Willenhall and Bilston, right in the centre of the Black Country, are being gradually destroyed by the inadequate attention being given to them by the planning authorities and by the effect of the measures to which I am now referring.
One of the reasons for this neglect was the municipal reorganisation which was pushed through some years ago. We now generally recognise that that reorganisation was too hasty, ill-conceived and did not achieve the economies which it set out to achieve. I have been fascinated to read the diaries written by our


late colleague Mr. Richard Crossman. He described graphically the work which he did as a Minister during that important period. However, what he aimed to achieve during that period has not been achieved. The reorganisation of local government has not resulted in a better local government service for the British people. It has resulted in a growth of bureaucracy.
My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, at a conference in Eastbourne a week or so ago, referred to the fact that the number of people employed in local government had increased in just over 10 years from 1·5 million to 2·5 million. We know that some services have increased, but that does not justify such an increase in manpower. Translated to an area like mine, small authorities which were close to the people and which had an intimate knowledge of the area have been swept aside in an anxiety for bigness which was subscribed to by the late Richard Crossman. That bigness has resulted in more centralisation, bigger authorities and less interest in areas which have been blighted by the neglect which has come about by the transfer of power from the peripheral areas to the centre.
We are talking about areas which have been neglected for very many years, so we do not expect to see any vast improvements overnight. However, the matters to which I am referring do not make the situation any easier. The planning machinery available to the local authorities is not powerful enough, or is being neglected. The result is that certain "get rich quick" organisations are able to drive a coach and horses through the regulations which have been established over the years to ensure that authorities are able to develop local communities, especially sensible shopping centres, which are the heart of these localities, and not have them destroyed by the development of unauthorised hypermarkets.
I am anxious to have an assurance that the Minister and his colleagues are aware of this problem and want to do something about it. I will refer him to the detail of the problem which particularly affects my constituency.
Many years ago, an organisation started to establish an hypermarket in the middle of an urban area. It eventually

achieved planning permission in November 1971 for a building to sell household goods and furniture. According to the Walsall Borough Council, the application was approved on the understanding that it was for a wholesale warehouse only. The authority was not then aware that the organisation in question was connected with a major hypermarket group called Kwik Save, because it had made the application in other names and rather secretly.
The building which had been approved was built. But it became clear to local traders that something peculiar was going on, because, instead of a wholesale warehouse for the sale of furniture and household goods, they noticed that another type of building was being constructed. When they noticed that 600 car parking places were being provided, they became extremely suspicious. They suspected—rightly as it turned out—that some kind of retail operation was to be opened where one had not been approved.
The local authority was approached. In June 1975 it assured the traders concerned that their suspicions that a supermarket or retail operation was being opened were wild and unfounded. The local authority said that it was supremely confident that the building in question would be used only as a wholesale warehouse. Therefore, certain people were placated.
When I was brought into the picture, in September and October, I was alarmed to see evidence that the building was to be opened as a retail hypermarket, although everybody agreed that the original planning permission was for a wholesale warehouse to sell furniture and household goods. The local authority told me that, although it was concerned about the matter, it could do nothing about it because, if it stopped this organisation going ahead, it could be subject not only to legal costs, but damages which, in the long run, could amount to tens of thousands of pounds, which would not be an acceptable burden. Therefore, although people were aware that a retail operation was due to be opened, the local authority and the Minister were powerless to do anything about it.
The operation was conducted in conditions of great secrecy. Unmarked vans


delivered goods. Work was sometimes done at night so as not to arouse suspicion. There was no publicity—no advertising. But on 23rd October the organisation concerned opened a retail hypermarket which has attracted a certain amount of custom. The result has been devastating for certain shops in the area, particularly in Darlaston. It has also affected Bilston, where a branch of Liptons has closed down and a branch of Marks and Spencer has decided to close after Christmas because of the effect of the hypermarket.
The hypermarket is going merrily along, although everyone agrees that it is an illegal operation. The local authority put an enforcement notice on the firm, but that was five weeks after it commenced its retail operation. As the organisation has appealed against that notice, it can continue trading. I understand that, because of the cumbersome arrangements in these matters, it could go on operating for very many years.
According to answers to inquiries about the organisation Kwik Save, this is not the first time that it has conducted experiments of that character. It has used this technique in many parts of the country. That is why it is a serious matter not only for my constituency, and that is why the Minister should do something about it.
In Bangor the organisation obtained planning permission to open a petrol station and then started to operate a supermarket for retail sales. It was not until three years after the date of commencement that the county council was able to bring the operation to a close. During that period the company was able to recoup most, if not all, of its investment. In other areas it has become so well established that no one has been able to dislodge it.
There is another curious aspect of this organisation's development. It made an application last Thursday in the Walsall court for a licence to sell spirits and wines. Although the local council has readily acknowledged that it had no planning permission to develop as a retail sales outlet, the council's solicitor said at the hearing that there was no council objection to granting a permit. It is a very curious state of affairs, which has given rise to much comment in the area.
I believe that this may be a sign that the council is giving in to an organisation which has ridden roughshod over planning rules. The Minister should act quickly, but, unfortunately, he has not been willing to receive a deputation on the subject. He argues that he must adjudicate on the appeal and eventually make a decision. He says that therefore he cannot intervene at this stage. That means that he is impotent and that the organisation can get away with it for a long time.
Allowing Kwik Save to succeed in maintaining its trading operation will be a bad blow to local traders in many of the small towns in the locality. It means that they would be unlikely to maintain viable operations, that more shops would close down. Darlaston in particular, which has already become a ghost town, would deteriorate still further.
I hope that the Minister can assure us that something effective will be done to ensure that the planning permission which was given for this building will be applied and that its illegal operation as a hypermarket will be stopped and that the illegal operations of Kwik Save and similar companies in other parts of the country, to which I have referred in my Early-Day Motion, will be brought to an end.

12.26 a.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Gordon Oakes): I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Stone-house) for raising this subject and illustrating possible weaknesses in the planning system. But, as a former Minister himself, he will appreciate my difficulty in dealing with specific cases. That is why the Minister for Planning and Local Government felt unable to see my right hon. Friend on this subject. As he himself has said recently, enforcement proceedings have been taken by the appropriate planning authority in my right hon. Friend's constituency. That means that an appeal can be made, and no doubt will be made, to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.
This does not mean that my right hon. Friend is impotent. What he cannot do is comment while an issue is before him, or is likely to be before him. That would obviously be wrong. He appoints the inspector to look at the case, considers and judges the inspector's report, and makes


his decision. If, in the meantime, he were to comment on, or, worse still, receive deputations, he would be apprising his mind of facts which had not come out at the inquiry. It would be unfair on the planning inquiry, the appellant and everyone else for him to behave in that way.
So it is not impotence which prevents my right hon. Friend from discussing the matter, nor is it discourtesy: it is just the constraint that we have at the Department of the Environment against making comments on any specific case while that case is before us or is likely to come before us. That is our difficulty with my right hon. Friend's Early-Day Motion: it mentions specific cases and undoubtedly some of them could come to the Secretary of State. Having said that about specific cases, I still think that it is valuable that my right hon. Friend has raised this subject, because it gives me an opportunity to deal with the general problem.

Mr. Stonehouse: Could not my hon. Friend ensure that these buildings are closed while appeals are being considered? Otherwise, they could go on being used as retail hypermarkets for years while the appeals are going on.

Mr. Oakes: That is something to which I will come when we deal with enforcement. This was a decommendation by Mr. George Dobry in his report.
On the question of warehouses, since the date that my right hon. Friend mentioned the Department has issued a circular to all local authorities—Development Control Policy Note No. 14. We are well aware of the problem of the definition of the word "warehouse". To most people, it means a building, possibly by a docks, where things are stored. But increasingly today it has come to mean a place to purchase things other than a normal shop. Current use has tended to translate its meaning into that of a discount store.
In the development policy note we urged local authorities specifically to be very careful when giving planning consents for anything described as a warehouse. We said that although there was no statutory definition of a warehouse, our view was that a warehouse was a place where goods were primarily stored, not sold, and that the kind of development where members of the public bought goods was a shop.
The note was sent out either early this year or late last year. Many difficult problems arose from the Town and Country Planning Use Classes Order owing to the complexities of planning law. If planning permission is sought for premises for a particular use, but it is eventually intended to put them to a different use, it is quite possible that some changes will be necessary to the structure which will deviate from the planning permission. Thus the building of premises suitable for a supermarket rather than for a car showroom could be outside a planning permission for the latter and liable to enforcement action.
I should point out that a change of use of premises without a specific permission is not always a breach of planning control, since some changes of use are provided for in subordinate legislation. But it should be said immediately that such changes of use mean a change from an established use to another use. To make use of premises for a purpose different from that for which planning permission has been granted, but not started, is not a change of use within the meaning of the Town and Country Planning Use Classes Order: it would not be covered by any permission and would be liable to enforcement action.
As I have indicated, changes of use are provided for in statutory instruments. The Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1972—the current version of a long-established document—sets out various kinds of uses, grouped together in classes. It provides that a change of use within the same class is not development, and so does not need planning permission. Class 1 deals with retail shops. Within this a change, for example, from a furniture shop to a food shop, would not require planning permission. The change of use of a car showroom to an ordinary shop can also take place without a specific planning permission, but this time under different arrangements. A car showroom is specifically excluded from the definition of shop for the purposes of the use classes order, since it is not a use which is likely to be appropriate to a shopping area. However, a change of use in the opposite direction is generally unlikely to be open to the same objections and the change from a car showroom to a shop covered by Class I of the use classes


Order is made "permitted development" by the general permission granted by Article 3 of the Town and Country Planning General Development Order 1973. Class III of Schedule I to that order contains the reference to this change of use.
I do not consider that the freedom to change the use of premises in this way is by any means a weakness in the system that we should alter. Its objective is to prevent local planning authorities from being burdened with a host of trivial applications for permission to change the use of all the shops and so forth in their areas so that when a shop goes from one retail use to another, the planning authority would not have to be concerned, so that it should not have to follow up every change of use.
Moreover, it is open to a local planning authority to limit particular premises to a specific use or uses if it thinks it appropriate and has good reasons for that belief. It can do this by placing conditions on the planning permission. As I said, it must have good reasons, legitimate planning reasons, for imposing those conditions. The effects of additional traffic would be such a reason, but the lack of need for another supermarket, or its effects on other traders, would not be.
It is not the function of a planning authority or of planning control to stipulate or prevent competition between traders or control the occupation of premises. Planning control is essentially to do with land use. Therefore, when my right hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North told the House of the difficulties experienced by some of the traders because of the operations of hypermarkets or supermarkets in their areas, I am bound to say that that is not primarily a planning matter. The use of the land is a planning matter: the effect on the trader is not.
It would be quite wrong for a number of reasons for my Department to intervene in that way. It would be wrong because undoubtedly patterns of trading change. People now have cars and they tend to buy for the week rather than the day, as they did in the old days. Consequently, there has been a change of pattern, not only in this country, but throughout the world. It is not the function of our planning laws to stop a change

of trading in that way if people want that change.
There are also straight economic reasons for a change in the pattern of trade. Very often the bigger shops and hypermarkets are able to sell commodities to the public more cheaply than the smaller shops, because they buy in bulk. Therefore, it is not the function of planners, planning authorities, or my Department to alter economic forces at work. That is not a planning matter. Planning is concerned with land use.
My right hon. Friend quite properly dealt with the question of enforcement. Successive Governments have wrestled with this problem of getting enforcement within a reasonable length of time. It takes a long time to get any enforcement action through the courts. This is no fault of the Department or planning departments, but is due to the tortuous nature of the legal system in which there can be considerable delays in deciding an enforcement case.
Where development is carried out without planning permission, it is open to the local planning authority to institute enforcement action. It is not, however, and never has been an offence to carry out development without planning permission, although the law requires planning permission to be obtained.
Before an offence arises, the local planning authority must initiate action which in effect puts the owner and occupier of the land on warning that what he is doing is considered to be in breach of planning control. An enforcement notice has to allow a period of not less than 28 days at the end of which it comes into effect, and during that period it is open to persons on whom the notice is served to appeal to the Secretary of State. An appeal stays the coming into effect of the enforcement notice until such time as the appeal is determined or is withdrawn.
I accept that this is bound to lead to some considerable time elapsing before the notice comes into effect. My Department is doing everything possible to deal with appeals as quickly as possible, but at the present time the average period from the receipt of an enforcement appeal to its decision is about 14 months. This is due mainly to the effects of a backlog of appeals which built up during the time


that the intake of normal planning appeals was very heavy and when local authorities were unable to accept dates for inquiries because of special pressures following local government reorganisation. We hope to improve on the present performance in the coming year and where in individual cases the authority seeks priority handling because the development is giving rise to serious problems locally, we do our best to comply with its requests.
My right hon. Friend in his intervention asked if anything could be done to stop the trading while an enforcement appeal is heard. In his report of the Development Control System Mr. George Dobry, QC, made a number of recommendations concerning the speeding up of enforcement procedures. One of these was that local planning authorities should be able to serve stop notices in respect of changes in use of land in the same way as they can serve such notices where building or engineering works are commenced without planning permission. This would enable a use of premises to be stopped effectively while the enforcement action was pursued and would meet some of the criticisms implicit in my right hon. Friend's arguments.
In the detailed statement made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on 12th November setting out his conclusions on Mr. Dobry's report, he stated that he generally accepted the recommendation on this and allied matters. But he pointed out that they would require amendment of the 1971 Act, and this he proposes to seek when there is a suitable opportunity for legislation. I regret that I cannot at present give my right hon. Friend any indication of when such legislation will be introduced, but I can assure him that we are very aware of this weakness and that we shall rule to deal with it as soon as possible.
I noted that in his Early-Day Motion my right hon. Friend referred to a case in Wales including one that took three and a half years to determine. The same procedure applies in Wales as in England, but specific cases in Wales are matters for my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Wales.
I appreciate that the existence of a new trading pattern, and indeed the very

word "warehouse", can create difficulties for a local planning authority. My right hon. Friend and I trooped through the Lobby together against local government reorganisation. However, we have got it.
In general, one of the difficulties, particularly in my right hon. Friend's area, was the smallness of some authorities. The new authorities have been in existence for only 18 months. It is because of the problems that they inherited from the previous authorities that they are in such great difficulties with so much of their environment. Everything cannot be cleared up at once. It is for the local planning authority to pass a plan in the area or to move for enforcement procedures. It is not for my Department. My Department can act quasi-judicially, but control is with not the Department of the Environment but the local planning authority concerned. It appears from what my right hon. Friend said that in his constituency steps are being taken by the local authority with regard to the development about which he complains.
I hope that I have satisfied my right hon. Friend that powers exist to stop development without planning permission and that we accept that there are weaknesses in the enforcement system. One of the biggest problems has been delay. I again assure my right hon. Friend that efforts will be taken to correct this and that legislation will be introduced at the earliest possible opportunity. I hope that my reply has satisfied my right hon. Friend that we in the Department are aware of the problems. I again ask him to forgive me for not dealing with specific cases, for reasons that I explained.

Orders of the Day — DEVOLUTION

12.43 a.m.

Mr. David Penhaligon: I wish to talk about devolution policies in England. I represent the county that considers that it has been near England for a long time and not part of it, but at least for the sake of this debate we shall consider Cornwall as being part of England.
In Cornwall there is enormous pressure for anti-centralisation. There is a great rejection of the basic philosophy that bigger is necessarily better. My election was living proof of that rejection of the


central influence. Anybody who wins a seat from third place and 16,000 votes behind must have had something happen in his area. In my case, it was that Cornwall wanted greater ability to influence its future.
An incident which occurred the very first day I came to Parliament in many ways summed up the feeling that existed in Cornwall. I was asked by a member of the Press what I thought of Westminster. I assured him that I had never been in the place before in my life and that I had visited London on only about eight or nine occasions.
The next day I had a bigger Press about the fact that it was possible for somebody to get elected to Parliament, never having visited it, than I have had about anything that I have done since. The man was amazed that somebody interested in politics could have become involved to the extent of becoming a Member and yet had never been sucked into the centre at Westminster. I had to tell him that there were millions of people who lived a long way from London and who rejected a great deal of London's influence on their lives.
This pressure is felt not just by the Cornish in Cornwall. Many of our new arrivals recognise it. Indeed, that is the very reason why many of them came to the county. They recognise the Cornish identity, and in many cases they work hard to preserve it. The real reason for the pressure that exists in areas such as mine, and, I suspect, for some of the pressure in Scotland, is the rejection of what is seen in the regions as the power-grabbing nature of Westminster. It is a feeling that has evolved and increased even in my period of being interested in politics.
This feeling has bred two nationalist movements in Cornwall. Indeed we have the third group of nationalist movements in Britain and one of its members stood against me in the last two elections. There is an increase in interest in the Cornish language, although I cannot say that I speak it. It is an indication of the feeling in the area. It is an indication of independence and a rejection of many of the standards of life in this place. It is an indication of the feeling and pressure that exist.
I have never been sure whether it was for administrative convenience or because

the Government recognised the regional pressures but in recent years we have had a proliferation of regional bodies set up that affect policy-making in Cornwall. We have the South-Western Economic Planning Council, the South-Western Water Authority, the regional health authority, the Road Construction Unit and our regional electricity and gas boards. Not one of those bodies is elected by anybody. What is far more serious is that they appear to be accountable to nobody, and yet they make decisions that affect our lives.
Let me consider first the South-Western Economic Planning Council. I regard this as the most ludicrous body ever to be set up. It covers an area comprising Gloucester, Bristol, Wiltshire, Somerset, Devon and, of course, Cornwall. If someone were to stand at the north end of the area covered by this authority, he would be 10 miles nearer to the border of Scotland than to Land's End. In terms of time, he would be far nearer to Scotland than to Land's End, because the roads to the North are infinitely better.
Bristol, which the Government have apparently decided is the headquarters of the South-Western Region, has far more to do with the Midlands, both geographically and economically, than with the South-West Region. Indeed, in speeches in Cornwall I have called it one of the Birmingham suburbs, because economically it seems to many in Cornwall to be precisely that.
Fortunately for Cornwall, the reports produced by the South-Western Economic Planning Council appear to have very little effect and hardly anybody takes any great notice of them. One of the two reports that the Council has produced recently said that in the Council's opinion second homes and what are locally known as "summer lets" have no bad effect in Cornwall. I wish that one or two of the people who wrote the report would come to my "surgeries" to see whether they had any effect.
Recently the Council has said, probably with more truth than previously, that the number of people coming to the South-West to retire is a good thing, and I agree that it is not a particularly bad thing. That is one body.
Then we have the South-Western Water Authority. To be fair to that authority


—and it is not very often that many of us in the South-West are—there is little doubt that it was presented with enormous problems when it was set up. Clearly, every local authority in the country and every local water board, on hearing that someone else was to take over responsibility, stopped all progress on its schemes and employed a large number of architects to draw up magnificent new schemes. They had them costed and then, the moment the new authority took over, they sent them to it by post—first-class mail, no doubt.
However, this body has unbelievable power over my region. If the country authority wants to develop a village or town at A and the regional water authority decides that it would rather put in a sewerage scheme at B, that is the end of the matter as far as Cornwall County Council is concerned. We develop at B, because it is difficult to develop where there is no sewerage scheme.
I have never understood and still do not understand the logic of not making this body responsible to the local county authority, especially considering our geo graphical position. I am not knowledgeable enough about other county authorities to know whether this would make sense elsewhere. But certainly in Cornwall, why that authority, or at least part of it, was not made the Cornwall Water Authority and then put under some democratic control is totally beyond me.
Another body that has been set up in Exeter is the Road Construction Unit. I hope that the Minister will be able to educate me a little about this body—by whom it is appointed, to whom it is resonsible, and what it is supposed to do My ability to influence it has been a little less than zero since I was elected a Member of Parliament. I can only believe that it is merely London's agent. It has made some incredible decisions.
Before I was elected to Parliament I used to work in Camborne, some 12 or 13 miles from my home. Camborne has an enormous traffic problem. No one would deny that, certainly not at five o'clock on the way home from work. It now has a bypass. That is certainly worth a visit by the Minister if he ever visits Cornwall during his summer holidays. It

is a dual carriageway, with many bridges over it to make sure that progress is not impeded. Something over half of its length is lit with innumerable lamps—the standard distance apart and with the standard intensity bulbs. The cost was £5 million. It was built to exactly the same standard as any other bypass, whether at Salisbury, Andover, or elsewhere. The one great difference is that Camborne is 21 miles from Land's End, and quite where all these cars that can roar down the Camborne bypass will go I do not know.
One of the most interesting things that have seen recently was the development of a new basis of currency for Cornwall. The new currency is yards-of-the-Camborne-bypass. It is certainly interesting to compare expenditure on various items in Cornwall with the cost of yards of this bypass. For example, in 1969–70 on hospitals we spent 160 yards. That was the expenditure on capital projects of hospital building in Cornwall. In 1971–72 we increased that expenditure to 1,080 yards. In the last year for which I have figures, 1973–74, we managed to spend on building hospitals in Cornwall—which has probably one of the worst health facility records in the country—1,400 yards of the Camborne bypass. If there were far more power in our area, we should just not have considered that bypass to be the priority for expenditure that it was made.
In another constituency in the region there is a new scheme to build a bypass for Hayle, which has the distinction of being about 12 miles from Lands End. The figure mentioned for building this particular monstrosity varies, but I have heard suggestions of £12 million or £13 million—for building a town bypass about 12 miles from Land's End. Somebody suggested that during the summer we should build a shute at Land's End, because there would not be room for the cars anywhere else.
There is talk of abolishing the whole railway structure in Cornwall, which admittedly loses £500,000 a year. For the cost of the Camborne bypass we could keep the railway line for 10 years, and I believe that if we were allowed to invest the £5 million, we could keep it going for ever. Those who understand the local economy know that the Cam-borne bypass does not compare in


importance with keeping the railway line for ever. Government standards which may make sense in some parts of the country do not make sense when applied to a peninsula at the end of the country.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Privy Council Office (Mr. William Price): As one who spends his holidays on Hayle beach, may I ask the hon. Gentleman whether he is arguing that there should not be a Hayle bypass?

Mr. Penhaligon: I am not arguing that there should not be some sort of road improvement. I am not arguing that we do not want a road improvement in Cam-borne. I am saying that the basic problems could have been overcome with much less grand schemes. It is Government standards that I am having a go at. For example, an extension to the Redruth bypass would have overcome the Camborne problem. It would be possible to build a normal two-way road to overcome the difficulty in the Hayle area.
The hon. Gentleman knows of the problems in Hayle when he visits it in the summer. Those of us who live there all the year round know that the population is somewhat smaller for the rest of the year. There are those in Cornwall who think that perhaps there are too many visitors in the peak weeks.

Mr. William Price: My wife's people live in Troon, at the top of Camborne Hill, so I visit Camborne at all times of the year, as well as Redruth, Hayle and Land's End. I am well aware of the problems the hon. Gentleman mentions. It may be that other hon. Members go to Cornwall only in the summer, but I go all the year round, and I love going there.

Mr. Penhaligon: I am lucky that the debate is to be answered by a Minister who is so well informed. When the hon. Gentleman goes to Troon, the village cricketing centre of England, which won the Haig cup for two out of the last three years, he will be told that the people there are fed up with the men in London ordering and organising all our lives. Many of us think that we could handle things better ourselves.
I can give a recent example. Two road improvements have been carried out at a village in my constituency called Mitchell, which nobody here has ever heard of.

To the south we now have a very wide road—admittedly not dual carriageway, but wide enough for four lanes, though marked out for three. On the other side of Mitchell a great deal of money has been spent on straightening out a dangerous bend. There are the inevitable lights—whenever a road is improved, the Government's good work has to be illuminated.
But I have been unable to have one street light provided for Mitchell itself that the villagers may dodge the inevitable flow of traffic. I have written letters to the responsible body in Exeter, which keeps tell me that Mitchell's accident record is not bad enough. It is saying that the death of one person was not a big enough sacrifice. If only I could find another volunteer, we should probably get street lights. The lights on the corner would be better in Mitchell, and if it were up to the local people, that is where they would be.
I am in favour of a different structure of government and a different attitude by the Government. For many years the Liberal Party has proposed a federal system. That is one of the reasons that led me to join the party some 10 years ago.
There is an obvious case to be made for substantial regions, but Cornwall is very much a special case. The decision that we made would affect no one else. There is no county further on, only the Isle of Scilly. The local feeling is that we could do very much better on our own.
I believe that many of the county councils in England should be abolished and their powers transferred to the district councils. The regional body in Cornwall which I should like to see would have the same boundaries as the old county authority. But it would have to have far more power over the road structure, industrial development, water supply, sewerage schemes and health. It would need to maintain a general county control over police and eduction.
The most urgent requirement is not so much a different structure of Government, but a change of Government attitude. We at Westminster must stop continually grabbing power for ourselves. Indeed, we should help ourselves in this place if we were able to concentrate on some of


the real issues affecting the British people.
Many of my constituents are amazed when I tell them of the months we had to wait for a debate on unemployment because there was always something else—at times there were two or three some-things else that needed to be debated before unemployment. Having spent 15 months in this place, I believe even more firmly that central government will never solve the problems that lie in my county. That fact is that the Government here do not understand them.
Let us consider some of the results of the decisions that have been made by the Government over the years. Low incomes are probably Cornwall's greatest problem. Everyone thinks that its greatest problem is unemployment, but, with the exception of the past six months, the greater problem has been low incomes. According to the most recent survey of January 1975, a wage of under £40 a week is earned by 39 per cent. of the United Kingdom work force. In Cornwall that wage is earned by 63 per cent. of the work force. In the £40–£60 bracket the United Kingdom average for full-time workers is 44 per cent. while the average in Cornwall is 29 per cent. For wages in excess of £60 a week the national average is 17 per cent. but in Cornwall it is a miserable 8 per cent. Even in Scotland, where there has recently been an enormous amount of complaint about the terrible treatment that it has received in the past, 15½ per cent. of the work force is earning in excess of £60 a week. The earnings that I have mentioned are before income tax deductions.
We all know about the unemployment that exists throughout the country, but in Cornwall unemployment has risen to 10·3 per cent. The figure is always slightly exaggerated because many people go to Cornwall to retire. Many people go to Cornwall and register as retired bank managers. We seem to run out of jobs for retired bank managers. The basic level of unemployment is 10·3 per cent., but, because Cornwall has a smaller percentage of women workers than any other county in England, the real level of unemployed is a genuine 10 per cent. The women who are not working make up for the people who do not want to work.
In the past few years we have built up a satellite-type economy. Recently some friends helped me to do a survey. One of our findings was that 131 of the 184 largest firms in Cornwall—and when we get down to the 184th we are dealing with nothing very large—are controlled from headquarters outside the county.
For example, Rank Radio is controlled from Plymouth; Heathcoat's from Glasgow, Harvey's from Bristol, Devenish-Redruth Breweries—which sounds a Cornish concern—from Weymouth, Morland's from Glastonbury, and Marathon from Taunton. That is bad enough in the private sector, but in the public sector the system is worse. The South-Western Electricity Board accounts are centralised at Plymouth, with a training centre at Taunton, the regional water authority is based in Exeter, the regional health authority is in Bristol, with its training centre at Taunton; and British Rail is based at Plymouth. Indeed most Government services are based at Plymouth if we are lucky, and at Bristol if we are not.
I believe that attempts over the years—and they have been substantial—by the Government to attract industry to Cornwall have gone wrong at least in part because they have gone in for the wrong sort of industry. I would rather see in Cornwall 20 factories with 2,000 square feet of factory space apiece than one large factory with 40,000 square feet. In a low-population economy when one becomes that dependent on one factory, one knows that its collapse can have disastrous effects on the local economy. All too often we see our towns growing but our villages static and often becoming little more than suburbs of the towns. I believe that we are in danger of changing Cornwall into a mini-version of anywhere else.
If we had the power to influence events in Cornwall, we should not approach the matter in that way. Cornwall suffers from an exaggeration on any recession that takes place. If the system is based on companies with a centre and branches flowing from it, the branches bear a larger proportion of any recession and that causes problems, the problems of which we are only to well aware.
I recently obtained some figure relating to the Civil Service Council for


Further Education and the number of day-release students in the South-West. The figure in Gloucester was 60, in Cheltenham 69, in Bath 149—an extraordinary figure—in Plymouth 69, and in Bristol 58. But in Cornwall the figure was only six.
Cornwall is suffering from an acute form of the national tendency—the concentration of brain and the decentralisation of brawn. There is only one hope for regions such as mine—namely, quick and powerful decentralisation of government. I believe that Cornwall will get its fair share only if it becomes a unit of real authority on its own. I would advocating working towards a different industrial policy in the county. I should like to see the encouragement of bodies to run co-operatives to market many of the products from the craft industries and to sell those goods in Paris, New York, or wherever it may be. We should do far more to encourage secondary industry based on our natural industries, whether they be tin, china clay, agriculture, or some form of food processing. They are our basic industries, and if we were given power locally, we should do far more to expand those activities.
My county does not want independence. I tend to regard those who want independence for our area as living in cloud-cuckoo-land. But we want an effective way of influencing our future. That patently does not exist at present.
My reason for drawing attention to this subject in this debate is that I am desperately concerned about the Government's White Paper on devolution in Britain. I think that this debate will serve to put over Cornwall's view before that document sees the light of day.

1.10 a.m.

Mr. Richard Wainwright: I am very glad to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Truro (Mr. Penhaligon). He and I have long agreed that our presence in the House is fairly firm evidence of the existence of strong regional feelings at different ends of the country. He has a thoroughly Cornish name and tells me that he is a total Cornishman. I have a Yorkshire name and am proud to be a total Yorkshire-man. If my name had been Vere de

Vere, or if I had come from anywhere south of Sheffield or north of Middlesbrough, I should not have been allowed to win the famous Socialist stronghold of Colne Valley.
What my hon. Friend has said about Cornwall made the point that I should like to stress to the Minister. In the Liberals' view, there is no reason for the scheme of devolution to the provinces of England to provide identical patterns for each province. So strong are different regional characteristics and topographical characteristics of the English regions that it would be very foolish to present a scheme for identical arrangements for regions which differ so much. Cornwall has the great advantage of leading to nowhere else, which makes it very much master of its own communications and so on. The industrial regions of the North do not have that advantage—we must not stop traffic to and from Scotland—but we have the compensating advantage of a strong economic and industrial base. I hope that this is being borne in mind by the devolution unit, for which the Liberal Party has a high regard and great expectations.
My main purpose in speaking on the eve of the preparation of the White Paper is to try to demolish three very silly fairy tales that vested interests and lazy minds have put about on the subject of English regional devolution. First, there is the absurd myth that there is no great desire for devolution in the regions. This is a tempting argument for big business and the bureaucracy to believe, because they are outraged by the trouble caused by having to accommodate different feelings and different market responses in different parts of the country. Many national newspapers are trying to get out of the bother of printing in Manchester as well as London by saying that the people of England are now all alike and there is no longer a need for a northern edition. This is the product of laziness and a narrow commercial view. It has no genuine base in fact.
One has only to turn to the memorandum of dissent submitted by Lord Crowther-Hunt, who is now a member of the Government, and Professor Alan Peacock to the Report of the Royal Commission on the Constitution. They commissioned an attitudes survey, with


the agreement of the Commission, and it pointed out:
A major finding is that feelings of regional identification are fairly strong throughout the country. Although they are particularly strong in Wales and Scotland, they are almost as marked in the South West and Yorkshire… It therefore seems that the sentiments which exist in Scotland and Wales are not unique; they are held to almost the same extent in the country as a whole and there are some regions of England where regional feeling is almost as strong.
To bear that out, the report continues on page 27:
The people in Wales were less interested in more devolution than the average for Britain as a whole—and less even than in most English regions. Thus, for example, while in Britain as a whole 61 per cent. favoured more devolution, in Wales the figure was 59 per cent.; and the Welsh figure compares with 69 per cent. in the North West of England, 66 per cent. in the South, 65 per cent. in the East Midlands and 62 per cent. in Yorkshire.
Even now, in discouraging circumstances, people in local government have more than enough to do to cope with the changes. The four new counties into which Yorkshire has, unhappily, been split under the 1972 Act have lost no time in establishing a firm arrangement by which every quarter representatives from the four counties meet to establish an all-Yorkshire position to confront Whitehall and Brussels.
The few people who genuinely believe that they do not detect signs of strong regional feeling for a measure of independence in England are not looking for the right signs. The nationalist movement in Scotland is associated with flags, strange costumes, weird music and extravagant ceremonial. When such people go to Yorkshire and find that we have no time for dressing up, waving flags and playing strange instruments—in other words, we are not a lot of Presbyterians in Yorkshire—they should not assume that we do not have the same feelings underneath the skin. Independence in Yorkshire expresses itself in a markedly increasing determination to establish self-reliance.
It is regrettable from the point of view of the House that the trend in recent years has been for Yorkshire people, who have a great personal motive for public service, not to offer themselves to serve in the House—as did Wilberforce and so many other great Yorkshiremen in the

past—but to concentrate on county and provincial matters where they can have a real impact and see some result from their public service. It is the same in industry. Yorkshire worked hard in the last decade to build up decent centres of financial power. It insisted that if merchant banks wanted to deal with Yorkshire money, they must set up, not kiosks, but substantial offices in the great Yorkshire cities.
We are handicapped in that, unlike the Scots, we do not have a central focus for our regional feeling. Whitehall has been clever on the principle of divide and rule, and it is easy to set Leeds against Bradford, Sheffield against both and Hull against the lot. We have suffered in that way, but the existence of regional feeling cannot be in doubt.
The second fairy story I wish to demolish is the purely political gimmick that English regional feeling is a novelty recently introduced by the Liberal Party. That is easily demolished, because Liberal policy on English regional devolution goes back at least to Mr. Gladstone. I content myself with two brief quotations. In 1885 to the electors of Midlothian—what lucky people they were, although of considerable endurance—he said:
every grant to portions of our country of enlarged powers for the management of their own affairs is, in my view, not a source of danger, but a means of averting it, and is in the nature of a new guarantee for increased cohesion, happiness, and strength.
In 1897, 12 years later, when he was pre-occupied with the problems of Ireland, he said:
If we can make arrangements under which Ireland, Scotland, Wales and portions of Eng land can deal with questions of local and special interest themselves more efficiently than Parliament now can… I will consent to give Ireland on principle nothing that is not upon equal terms offered to Scotland and to the different parts of the United Kingdom.
We were all taught at school about Gladstone's great objective of conferring home rule upon Ireland, so it is significant to note that at the very time he was fighting so hard to do that, he was also saying that in principle—the devolution unit in the Government should note this—he was not prepared to offer anything to Ireland that was not to be offered at the same time to all the other parts of the United Kingdom.
The third fairy story—this is really assuming dangerous proportions in the argument—is that, however desirable to the


English regions devolution may be and however great may be the demand for it, we shall have to suffer for a long time under the evils of the Local Government Act 1972, and we must not add more tiers of government. Of course we must not add more tiers of government. Liberals would be the last people to suggest adding to the appalling weight of bureaucracy, interference and control.
From the administrative point of view, the great virtue of a regional structure, democratically elected, is that it would enable us to scrap many tiers of government, some of which were mentionel by my hon. Friend the Member for Truro. From the point of view of those living and suffering in metropolitan authorities under the new Act we could get rid of the new metropolitan county councils straight away. No one, except perhaps some of the senior employees, would care a button. These bodies are regarded as having virtually no function. They spend their time trying to find jobs, very often sending huge glossy booklets to Members of Parliament.
Moreover, they are run at great expense. They are all dressed up and have nowhere to go. If we had regional government, we could get rid of not only the metropolitan county councils, but the health authorities, the water authorities, the regional parts of the gas boards, the electricity boards, the Post Office, the Civil Airports Authority and, as my hon. Friend called it, the extraordinary structure of economic planning councils. Of course, some of their staffs could remain, but the controlling bodies could be merged into the regional authority and have the great virtue of being democratically elected.
As a Member of Parliament I find it appalling to have to reply to constituents who are worked up about the compulsory introduction of fluoride into the water supply. It is appalling to tell them that this decision, by law, will have to be taken by a group of people who never have to face the electors—namely, the water authority. A decision which affects the daily water supply to every home should be taken by a regional body democratically elected, a body wich has to account for its actions at the polls. The huge regional outposts of the Departments of Employment, Industry, Trade, Environment, Health and Social Security, the

Home Office and Agriculture, Fisheries and Food could all be brought under the control of an elected regional body.
Some people ask what there is to show for a measure of regional independence. I shall briefly point out some of the benefits which the Scots have enjoyed for years as a result of the relatively small measure of devolution which they have already got at St. Andrew's House in Edinburgh. For years Aberdeen has had a gold rush of its own. Even the bureaucracy could not stop the gold rush to Aberdeen because of North Sea oil.
Yet, being in Scotland, under the devolved powers which Scotland has, Aberdeen is able to offer in Government grants to incoming industries rather more than twice the grants which are available to a new industry coming into Yorkshire. Therefore, to those who have shall be given—so long as they have some devolved power. The grants are available per head of the population. It is a matter of simple arithmetic to work them out. It means dividing the money by the population.
Taking 1974 figures, social service cash benefits for each Scot in the population amount to £82·40 compared with £78 in Yorkshire. Public investment in housing is £31 in Scotland, £16 in Yorkshire; education building, £9 per head in Scotland, £6 per head in Yorkshire; passenger transport and communication, £5·50 per head in Scotland, £2·60 per head in Yorkshire. That is what happens when a province or a nation has some degree of devolution. We believe that both the nations and the provinces should have a great deal more.
How should the whole idea be set up in England? I should like to put two alternative proposals to the Parliamentary Secretary. I do not ask him to comment on them off the cuff, because I did not have an oportunity of giving him notice of them.
The first, as a working principle for the Government's White Paper on devolution within England, is that English regions should not be content with any less devolved powers than those accorded to Wales. I think that most Liberals go along with the view that Scotland, with its own intricate legislative system and established Church, has certain grounds for having additional devolved powers. But we on the Liberal Bench cannot see


why any English region should put up with any whit less powers than are and ought to be accorded in generous measure to the people of Wales.
Alternatively, if the Government are determined to be sceptical, let there be democratically elected conventions for the regions—the regions to be defined by the Government—and let those regional conventions debate, consider and conclude what powers they should have as a start. That device has been used in many countries. It is something new for the mainland of Great Britain, but we have an educated public and the advantage of the media for generating interest in this matter, and I believe that there is a strong argument for allowing the people of each region to propose, at any rate, the powers they would wish to have. Certainly the demand is there. We fervently hope that the Government's White Paper on devolution to the English regions will come both promptly and in a generous spirit.

1.28 a.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Privy Council Office (Mr. William Price): I apologise for the absence of the Lord President of the Council and the Minister of State, Privy Council Office, one of whom would normally have replied to this debate. Unfortunately, both have been unwell. I am beginning to wish that the bug had taken me, too, although just who would have replied to the debate in that event, God alone knows.
I listened with great fascination to the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Penhaligon). I have family connections with Camborne and Troon. I am from the West Country. The Forest of Dean in Gloucestershire is right on the Welsh border and there are no more independent people in the whole of Europe.
I have been an ardent pro-Marketeer all my adult life. Just before the referendum in June my mother said to me "I cannot quite understand why you are so keen to take us into Brussels, Strasbourg and all the other places when we do not even want anything to do with those buggers in Gloucester, and that is only 11 miles up the road."
I understand the delightful West Country independence. I was born in and shall go back to it. In the meantime,

although I represent a West Midlands constituency, I have a lot of faith and a great deal in common with people from the West. Indeed, I have probably drunk as much Devenish beer in Cornwall as anybody in this House.
The subject tonight is the English regions and I am delighted that I have not had to take on the Scottish nationalists. I think the Minister of State might have gone sick because he thought he might have to take them on. The Lord President has already told the House that we are preparing a consultative document which we expect to issue fairly soon in the New Year. I can give hon. Members the assurance that there is no final draft yet, and all the views expressed tonight will, therefore, be considered. Clearly that would be right.
The purpose of that document will be to stimulate a wide debate about regional arrangements in England. It will not advocate any particular changes. Whether changes are needed and, if so, what form they should take can be decided only after much fuller public debate.
If tonight's debate has helped to arouse public interest ahead of publication—and I find very little interest in the West Midlands—it will have served a useful purpose. The possibility of new regional institutions has been an active issue at least since Redcliffe-Maud reported on local government in England in 1969. The Kilbrandon Report in 1973 carried things further.
One of the first actions of the 1974 Labour Government was to prepare a consultative document about the various Kilbrandon proposals, including those for England. Preliminary consultations took place with many bodies, and there is no secret that there was little enthusiasm for radical change. I know the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Wainwright) will dispute that, but I can tell the hon. Member for Truro that I checked tonight and I have been advised that we received five letters from the whole of Cornwall—and three of those from the same man. That is a fact and the evidence is there. I do not know who the man is, but I should not be surprised if he is the person who placed those delightful advertisements in the Redruth Packet and if he were a Liberal—I prefer them rather than us to have him.
In September 1974 we published our outline devolution proposals for Scotland and Wales and it was emphasised that we attached the same importance to democratic accountability of government in England. It was pointed out that the consultative process in England was not complete. We said that it would be wrong to go further until it was clear what the people of England wanted—and that is still our view.

Mr. Richard Wainwright: Could not this scarcity of letters, no doubt from all parts of England, be due to people's rising contempt for central Government, no matter which party is in power, and the feeling that writing to London is not going to achieve anything?

Mr. Price: I think that there is some truth in that, although whoever prepared my brief would not wish me to say so. I have 5,000 Chrysler workers in my constituency and I have had two letters about that matter. I am always suspicious of hon. Members who claim that they have had tens of thousands of letters from all over the world. I never believe them and they never produce the letters.
The response was not quite what we expected, and we are hoping that the further round of consultations will produce the evidence that we want from the English people. Members of the Liberal Party will agree that it is right that we should go to the people and ask them what they want instead of inflicting it upon them.
A number of suggestions have been made about changes in the organisation of government in England. These will be raised again and examined further in the consultative process. But it is important to make a number of general points.
In dealing with these matters we are not in an entirely open situation. The Government have made clear their adherence to economic and political unity within the United Kingdom and their proposals for Scotland and Wales were drawn up with the firm continuing framework of the United Kingdom. The implications have been spelled out in the White Paper. There is a need to safeguard the sovereignty of Parliament, to maintain a national framework of law and order, to secure fair and competitive balance for industry and trade, to enable

the Government to manage the demand in the economy as a whole, to control national taxation and total public expenditure, to devise regional and industrial policies for the United Kingdom and so on. These factors clearly apply also in England. We suggest that the onus is on anyone proposing radical changes to demonstrate that they do not conflict with those basic objectives—which we believe are accepted by the great majority of people—not only in England but in Great Britain as a whole.
In local government, there are problems about the timing of any major institutional changes. I agree that there are far too many tiers and that the form of government advocated tonight would not necessarily lead to more. The worrying thing from our point of view is that local authorities are still trying to recover from the last major reorganisation—and so are the ratepayers.
We were critical of the changes, but they have taken place and our first priority must be to make the system work as efficiently as possible. The Prime Minister, addressing the conference of local authorities at Eastbourne last month, said:
… no one sees a further major change in local government in the years immediately ahead. I repeat, local government has enough on its plate without adding the prospect of another reorganisation.
This all means that there must be serious doubts about the possible timing of any major changes in the English regions which would affect the structure of local government. Of course we need to discuss these matters, but there are no simple answers which can be readily applied.
We know that there are those who believe that federation is the answer to all our ills. Kilbrandon considered it but decided that it would not work in the conditions in the United Kingdom today. The Government share that view. Federalism means allocating sovereignty between federal and provincial governments. Each level is sovereign within its own allotted fields. This is essentially a concept devised in days when government played a much smaller part in people's lives.
Nowadays people expect Governments to secure a large measure of equality in public services and general standards of


living. A federal constitution makes that more difficult. In almost all existing federations, power is gravitating towards the centre. A federation consisting of four units—England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland—would, as Kilbrandon pointed out, be so unbalanced as to be unworkable.
Attempts to get around this by splitting up England overlook the fact that there is no evidence that people in England want to be governed by regional governments with independent sovereign powers and the divergencies in policies and priorities within relatively small areas that that would imply. A system of this kind would add immensely to the complexity of everyday life and to the cost of administration. I find it strange that most of those who advocate federalism rarely make any attempt to answer the real practical objections involved.
Having said that, I repeat that the Government, while not having an entirely open mind—we have made it clear in the White Paper that there are certain guidelines within which we would wish to operate—are prepared, and want, to consider all the views of any body or individual who wants to submit them.
We have had a good debate. We shall resume at least parts of it when the House discusses Scotland and Wales, and we shall continue the main point of tonight when the document about England is published.
These are complex matters affecting the daily life of every citizen. The Government are determined to have effective public debate in which all the problems are fully ventilated. It would be facile to suggest that there are simple answers waiting to be adopted which will produce an efficient and acceptable system of government overnight.
In view of the major debate in three weeks' time, and the fact that the consultative document will not be long delayed, I think that it would be advisable tonight to leave it there, with the repeated assurance that careful attention will be paid to everything that has been said.

Mr. Richard Wainwright: Does the Minister agree that there could be at least two views about interfering with the new system of local government? The

Government are not in love with the Conservative Local Government Act 1972. Is there not a case for saying that it would be unkind—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. George Thomas): Order. The hon. Member has already made his speech. He may not repeat his argument.

Mr. Price: I do not want my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment to accuse me of talking codswallop. This is a matter for him rather than me. It must be dealt with at a higher level than mine. I have my personal views, but the general view of the Government is that it would be extremely difficult at this stage to inflict another round of reorganisation on local government. However, the hon. Gentleman's point will be put to my right hon. Friend the Lord President when he gets off his deathbed.

Orders of the Day — OCEAN ISLAND

1.42 a.m.

Sir Bernard Braine: The story I have to tell is not edifying. It concerns the continuing grievances of the Banabans, a small remote people living in the South Pacific who have been caught up in the last stages of decolonisation in a way which poses serious moral and political problems for the British Government.
It is not that the Banabans, who now live on the Fijian island of Rabi, are asking for the moon. They passionately want the return of their own tiny ancestral home, Ocean Island, 1,600 miles away to the north and the means of rehabilitating at least part of it. Ocean Island is hardly a paradise. As I have seen with my own eyes, it has been almost completely devastated by ruthless and systematic mining of phosphate deposits for threequarters of a century. This has not been primarily for the benefit of the original inhabitants, but to provide cheap fertiliser for Australian and New Zealand farmers.
As so often happens in this vale of tears, the worm has turned. On 5th December a case was brought in the High Court of Chancery by Banabans who own land on Ocean Island against the British Phosphate Commission, a body owned in part by the British Government.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I must advise the hon. Gentleman that he is just coming to a matter which, I think, is sub judice, because it is at present before the High Court.

Sir B. Braine: If you will allow me to continue for a few more moments, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you will see that I not only recognise that what is before the High Court is sub judice, but that I want to get that aspect of the matter completely out of the way. My only reference to the High Court proceedings is to say in passing that when this case ended on its 106th day, thus gaining the doubtful distinction of being the longest case in our legal history, judgment had not been given, and it would be wrong for any comment to be made in this House on the precise matters at issue.
It would be equally wrong to discuss a second case by the same plaintiffs which began this week and in which the defendants are the Crown, represented by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney-General. When, however, these two cases are concluded, I have no doubt that the House will wish to know their cost to the Exchequer and why they were undertaken in the first place.
Irrespective of the outcome, a wider justice will still have to be done to all the people of the territory, which until now has been known as the Gilbert and Ellice Islands Colony, and that will require what has been completely missing from the political handling of the situation so far—namely, a statesmanlike and generous settlement. In short, as Britain prepares to divest herself of one of her last colonial dependencies in the South Pacific, she has the choice of leaving behind an area of tranquillity or one of seething discontent. It is my sad conviction that on present form it is the second prospect which seems more likely.
It is for that reason that I seek to raise this matter tonight. Leaving aside the economic grievances of the Banabans, which for the time being are properly the concern of the High Court, the issue I raise turns quite simply on whether the Banabans' claim for the return and independence of their ancestral home should be conceded. Once such independence is granted, it is the Banabans' intention to seek voluntary association

with Fiji. The House will be interested to know that the Fijian Government have already let it be known that they accept this in principle.
Unhappily, until now there has been no sign that the problem is really understood in Whitehall or that the political cost to our future relations with our Commonwealth partners in the Pacific—Australia, New Zealand and Fiji—of not resolving the matter before our departure has been fully grasped. Indeed, over the past year or so we have had a most extraordinary attempt to brush the matter under the carpet.
Her Majesty's Government are, of course, now preparing the Bill for the independence of the Gilbert and Ellice Islands Colony. They have already conceded that the Elice Islands, which are now known under the enchanting name of Tuvalu, can go their own way on the ground that their people are of a Polynesian stock, whereas the people in the rest of the colony are Meronesians. The Government have so far not been prepared to yield an inch on the Banabans' claim for similar treatment.
Three reasons are given for this. First, the Banabans are the same people as the Gilbertese. Why then permit them to claim special treatment? Secondly, to allow Ocean Island to secede from the Gilberts would be to break up a convenient administrative unit which has existed for a long time, and that would hardly be helpful to the new State. Thirdly, to concede independence to Ocean Island would be to deny to the Gilbertese, at least up to early 1978 when the phosphate deposits will be completely exhausted, much needed revenue.
None of these reasons stands up to any kind of analysis. The Banabans have a distinct identity of their own, as any social scientist who has studied the matter knows and as, incidentally, the Gilbertese and Banabans agreed at the recent meeting in Tarawa.
As for administrative convenience, postwar history surely provides numerous examples of the wrong-headedness and futility of denying an identity to any group that claims to be and is different. The answer to the financial viability argument is that the Gilberts, like Tuvalu, will need external aid long after they reach independence. There is no reason


why, as an act of simple restitution, the British, Australian and New Zealand Governments, who have profited so long from the exploitation of Ocean Island's phosphates, should not jointly meet the needs of the entire area while conceding the Banabans' legitimate claim for the return of their homeland.
Let us consider for a moment the implications of the Government's attitude, which so far has been to encourage the Gilbertese to become independent, retaining Ocean Island, with some kind of entrenched clause in its constitution, guaranteeing the Banabans' land rights on Ocean Island. This would leave the unhappy Banabans after British withdrawal split between two sovereign independent jurisdictions—as sure a prescription for divided loyalties, bitterness and conflict as anybody could devise. Could anything more ludicrous or irresponsible be imagined?
It may be that by now such ideas have been dropped, but they were certainly current earlier in the year when the hon. Member for Birmingham, Handsworth (Mr. Lee) and I visited the Pacific. In any event, how can Ministers put faith in entrenched clauses when the world is littered with the confetti of torn-up constitutions thought up by the constitutional lawyers of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office? Why were those constitutions torn up? It was because they were not founded on political reality. Whether it was in Africa or the Caribbean or anywhere else, they were not founded on the love of the people they were designed to serve. Such constitutions are doomed to failure where there is no ready consent from the beginning.
What is more, time is not on our side. By early 1978, the phosphate deposits on Ocean Island will be completely exhausted. This will conclude a commercial operation begun in 1900 which has resulted in the systematic destruction of the island in order to provide cheap fertilisers for Australian and New Zealand farmers. Indirectly, we ourselves, in the days of cheap Commonwealth food, benefited from that policy.
From the beginning the Banabans were in the way. Hardly anyone, even the neighbouring Gilbertese, had known of their existence before the discovery of phosphates in 1900. Britain then moved

in quickly, annexed the island and some 16 years later made part of the Gilbert and Ellice Islands Colony two groups of atolls the nearest of which lies 240 miles to the east.
The Second World War saw Japanese occupation of Ocean Island and deportation of the Banabans as slave labour to other islands in the Pacific. At the end of hostilities the sick and debilitated survivors were rounded up by the British authorities and dumped 1,600 miles away from their homeland at Rabi in the Pacific, which had been bought for them out of their own money. Incidentally, the thirtieth anniversary of the date of the Banaban's arrival on Rabi in 1945 was last Monday 15th December.
Two months before the arrival of the Banabans on Rabi, the British colonial authority conferred with representatives of the British Phosphate Commission. It is appropriate for me to quote briefly from the notes prepared for the meeting in October 1945:
"Removal of Banabans to Rabi.

(1) It is understood that there are at present 600 mixed Banabans and Gilbertese on Nauru, 750 on Kusae and 120 (Banabans only) on Tarawa. It is considered most desirable that this unique opportunity should be taken for taking them to Rabi instead of returning them to Ocean Island.
(2) It is proposed to second Kennedy to take charge of these removal operations with instructions to separate the Gilbertese in Nauru and Kusae from the Banabans, to return the former to their home islands but to inform the latter that as it is impossible for them to inhabit Ocean Island at present they will be taken to Rabi, where temporary accommodation, emergency food, etc. is ready for them.
(3) If this proposal is to be carried into effect it is essential that the BPC should lend the Government a vessel for the purpose of transporting the natives: the recruit ship would do very well. This request is made with confidence, since the removal of the Banabans and the settlement of the Banaban question is even more to the essential benefit of the British Phosphates Commission than the Government."

It is interesting to note the way in which we carried out our trusteeship for those who were our wards. The notes continue—
While present shipping difficulties are realised it is strongly urged that they should not be permitted to frustrate the carrying out of a project which the Commissioners have been striving to achieve for decades and which, if not done now, will never be done.
A ship was consequently made available and at long last this small community,


which had long been regarded as an awkward obstacle to our mining operations on behalf of Australian and New Zealand farmers, was removed from the scene. The irony of it was that indentured labour was then imported into Ocean Island to enjoy the relatively high wages and benefits which the Banabans might themselves have enjoyed on their own soil, while the Banaban community was left to fend for itself on Rabi in a strange environment and in circumstances of most primitive subsistence agriculture.
When I first inquired, I was told how fortunate they were in being removed to Rabi, but then I looked into the documents and consulted those who knew Rabi. All this is on record. There is a revealing literature on the subject if one chooses to read it. Indeed, it must be said that from the outset this small community of inoffensive people have been cheated, deceived and pushed about in a most shameful way. It is a sordid story.
But in the past 10 years the Banabans, under the impressive leadership of two men, Tito Rotan and his son, the Rev. Tebuke Rotan, have awakened to a realisation of their unique and dangerous political situation. They are resident, in the main, within the sovereign State of Fiji and yet they are still the lawful owners of Ocean Island which, if the British Government have their way, will pass to an independent Gilbertese State. Once the British depart and wash their hands of the whole area, they will find themselves under two sovereign independent jurisdictions. What a magnificent achievement that will be for the Foreign and Commonwealth Office!
As you reminded me at the outset, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because of the two legal actions I cannot discuss the extent of the financial exploitation of the Banabans, but an estimate of the cost of granting their independence is on record. In August 1974, the Governor, Mr. John H. Smith, expressed the hope that the Gilbert and Ellice Islands Colony would accumulate out of the then remaining Banaban phosphates a reserve of about £36 million, the interest on which would help balance the Budget in future years. If one assumes that there were four years of phosphates left when the governor made that estimate, some three remaining years would represent a once-for-all capital payment of £27 million

which the Gilbert Islands fear would be lost to them if the Banabans' wishes were met.
The Banabans say that they must have full control over their remaining phosphates without delay if they are ever to restore a reasonable part of their ancestral homeland so that at least some of their people can return to live there once again. In passing, I may say, and the hon. Member for Handsworth will bear me out, because we were there together, that I have little doubt that some rehabilitation is possible. We stood at the bottom of 30 ft. to 40 ft. craters on a moonscape, with dereliction all round us, yet we observed that there had been a natural regeneration of fruit-bearing trees.
However one looks at it, Britain will be morally responsible for replacing this sum of £27 million, or the interest thereon.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I want to be entirely fair to the hon. Member, and also to do my duty to the House. Is he arguing that the Government should provide the trees and shrubs? I understand that that is one of the issues upon which judgment will be given by the court in 1976.

Sir B. Braine: I cannot say, because the judgment of the court has not been given.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: But the case has been heard, and this is one of the issues upon which the court will give judgment. We therefore cannot—

Sir B. Braine: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With respect to the hon. Member, I must go by the advice that I am given. We cannot discuss a case that is sub judice.

Sir B. Braine: Having regard to the matters before the court, I do not think that I am transgressing. I shall be very careful in what I say. It is surely permissible to argue that in all fairness, if it be held that Britain should contribute something towards the rehabilitation of the island, that burden should in the end be shared by Australia and New Zealand. That has nothing to do with any court case. Over a period of many years, they should voluntarily contribute a substantial proportion.
The interesting point that I want to make is that there is every indication—at least, there was earlier in the year—that both countries would willingly meet their fair share of that responsibility. But it is Britain, the administering Power which has benefited until now in that the revenue from Banaban phosphate accruing to the Gilbert and Ellice Islands, that has actually reduced the amount of aid given from this country. These words are not mine. They are the considered view of the Government's advisers.
It is, therefore, the British Government who have deliberately permitted the exploitation of Banabans over three-quarters of a century—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman and I am not trying to make things difficult for him. However, I understand that one of the chief matters in dispute in the second action which is sub judice is this very question of the payment of royalty to which the hon. Gentleman is referring.

Sir B. Braine: That may be so, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I am dealing with something quite apart from any question of financial settlement—namely, what is to happen to Ocean Island and what is to be done to meet the request of the. Banabans for its return. That is not the subject of the court actions. But it is absolutely basic to a solution of this very difficult problem.
What I am trying to say—and it is very difficult to separate this from what may subsequently have to be done in the financial field—is that Britain is the governing Power at this stage. It is the British Government who in all conscience must take the initiative in righting the wrong.
I do not make these assertions without knowledge. Earlier this year the hon. Member for Handsworth and I visited Ocean Island, the Gilberts, Fiji and Australia. We were left in no doubt as to the fact that the Banabans had suffered great injustice, and there was a great deal of sympathy for their plight right across the Pacific. But we were also left with the distinct impression that the Australian and New Zealand Governments were profoundly uneasy about the whole situation and were prepared, if invited by

Britain, to play a positive role in a settlement which would enable Ocean Island to become associated with Fiji while ensuring that both the Gilbert Islands and Tuvalu received compensatory support and continuing aid for some years ahead. Indeed, we were assured, both by Ministers and officials, that they would respond to an early invitation by Britain to a round-table conference to resolve the matter.
It is no use the Under-Secretary shaking his head. This was conveyed to the Foreign Secretary in a report on 21st April, since when we have heard absolutely nothing further.

The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Edward Rowlands): The hon. Gentleman keeps talking about assurances. Will he give me some quotations from Ministers in Australia and New Zealand, some specific examples? I have spoken to the Australian and New Zealand Governments very recently on this subject, and I am only too happy to mention it now. But the hon. Gentleman keeps mentioning his special experience. What is that in detail?

Sir B. Braille: I shall give the hon. Gentleman his answer. The meetings that the hon. Member for Handsworth and I had were attended by representatives of Her Majesty's Government in Canberra. We did not have any meetings in secret. Representatives of Her Majesty's Government were present at the discussions that we had. Perhaps the hon. Member for Handsworth will confirm that.

Mr. John Lee: Perhaps I can assist in this way. I think that the hon. Member will recall that I stayed behind in Australia after be and I had spoken to Senator Willesey, the then Foreign Minister. I had a conversation with the then Deputy Prime Minister, Dr. Cairns, and it was held in the presence of the Head of Chancery of the British High Commission in Canberra, so there can be no dispute about that.

Sir B. Braine: It would be better for the Minister if he did not pursue that line.
Thus not only Australia and New Zealand but the newly-independent Commonwealth nations of the South Pacific are anxious that Britain should negotiate a generous and amicable


solution to this problem rather than withdraw from the area leaving behind rancour and seething dissatisfaction. After much patient negotiation that wise and farsighted Pacific statesman, Ratu Sir Kamisese Mara, Prime Minister of Fiji, whom we were privileged to meet, brought the Gilberts Council of Ministers and the Rabi Council of Leaders together. Under his chairmanship, full and frank discussions took place on 13th, 14th and 15th October. At the end of that meeting the two communities directly concerned added their combined plea to the one we had made in April for a round-table conference with representatives of Her Majesty's Government. For the benefit of the Minister I shall read the joint resolution which they published, which was as follows:
We (the Gilberts Council of Ministers) and the Banabans are concerned for the future well-being of our respective people when the phosphate mining on Ocean Island is exhausted in two to three years' time. We strongly feel that the Partner Governments"—
the Governments of Britain, Australia and New Zealand—
have a deep moral obligation towards both of us for our future economic survival as a people. We therefore resolve that negotiations between us and the three Partner Governments be commenced without any further delay to determine the extent by which some satisfactory and amicable solution can be arrived at so that each may properly discharge their respective responsibilities towards us both. We believe that negotiations should be conducted on a government-to-government basis and should start immediately.
A second resolution stated that the constitutional relationship between the two parties—the matter of the separation of Ocean Island from the Gilberts—would continue to be discussed, but that
it would be determined by the financial provisions available from the proceeds of the remaining phosphate resources and any contribution that may be forthcoming from countries which have benefited from the exploitation of the phosphate resources over the last 75 years.
Not unnaturally, the Gilberts Council of Ministers is not prepared to commit itself to parting with the share of revenue Britain has led it to expect to receive from the remaining phosphates until it knows that the administering Power, together with Australia and New Zealand, will supply it with the necessary, compensatory support. I have every sympathy with the council. We had every sympathy with the Gilbertese Ministers when we saw them earlier in the year.
As far as I know, this appeal, two months ago, for an immediate conference to establish the financial provisions required for a just and peaceful solution of the problem, has been ignored by Her Majesty's Government. I hope that the Minister will be able to tell us that it has not been ignored. It will be disgraceful if it has. It will be an abdication of leadership, an invitation to turbulence and in line with the continuing failure of Ministers and their advisers to take the Banaban issue seriously.
The only comment the Under-Secretary has made to my knowledge—apart from the strange remark in his intervention which implied that he did not know what has been going on—was that further discussions on the constitutional issue are to take place. He must know full well that the prospect of the Gilbertese agreeing to Banaban independence is unlikely in the extreme while their financial future remains unsecured. This was made crystal-clear to the hon. Member for Handsworth and myself in April. Why is it not crystal-clear to the Government today?
Sadly, I am beginning to conclude that the Under-Secretary seems prepared to continue the unworthy tradition established by his advisers throughout their dealings with the Banaban issue—to prevaricate and delay as long as there is the slightest prospect of the Government's continuing to enjoy the indirect benefit of Banaban phosphate revenue subsidising our obligations towards the Gilberts at the rate of a million Australian dollars a month. I urge the hon. Gentleman to free himself without further delay from this sordid and dishonourable policy.
I urge the hon. Gentleman to reject the sort of advice that we know has been given to his predecessors. I have in mind the mean words of one adviser who said that our purpose must be "to ditch the Banabans". That is one thing that I do not believe this Parliament or enlightened world opinion will ever permit him to do. I ask him to recognise that history has an uncomfortable way of refusing to allow injustice to be hidden for long. I say that the time is ripe for him to invite the Australian, New Zealand and Fiji Governments to an immediate conference with the Gilberts and Rabi Councils in order to establish the financial price which must be paid if Britain is to make


amends and leave the South Pacific with its head high, secure in the friendship and respect of all its island peoples.
It will be a tragedy if, in these last stages of decolonisation, Britain cannot find an honourable and generous solution to a problem that she herself has created and chooses to leave behind frustration and bitterness which results in another Anguilla or worse. There is still a little time in which to act with justice, but not much.

2.12 a.m.

Mr. John Lee: As I have indicated to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State, as I have had the opportunity of taking part in this debate I shall waive the Adjournment debate for which I had asked and which Mr. Speaker had been kind enough to give me for Friday. It would obviously be absurd to have two debates on the same subject within the same day.
In a curious way there is an echo in this debate of what was taking place not very long ago in the preceding debate on devolution. There is the common theme of the problem of government by consent. More and more as our society and more and more as the world as a whole becomes sophisticated, more and more peoples, be they large or small, remote from or close to the main stream of economic activity, are asserting their right to be consulted about the way in which they are governed. Less and less will it be permissible and less and less will it be prudent for their wishes to be disregarded.
To take an example a very long way from this debate—I think that the moral will be obvious to my hon. Friend after what he has heard from the hon. Member for Essex, South-East (Sir B. Braine)-there is the situation of the North American Indians and the demonstrations at Wounded Knee. That relates to a situation in which the peoples concerned had been dormant or acquiescent in regard to their identity for many a long day, yet they have now demonstrated and given vent to the kind of militancy that one associates with far more powerful and obvious sources of discontent.
I do not propose to go over all the ground that the hon. Gentleman has

covered, but I propose to give one or two illustrations of the way in which both inside the British Commonwealth and outside we have seen examples of how the world rues the day when it disregarded the susceptibilities and the identity of small peoples. I take an example of which I have some personal knowledge from my experience in the old Colonial Service.
The Treaty of Trianon was drawn up after the First World War when the German colonies of Togoland were abolished. The new boundaries were drawn up in total disregard of the wishes of the Dagomba and Ewe people who lived in the area. The reasonable approach would have been to have drawn the boundaries so that one community went into the French territory and became the French mandated Togoland and the other community went into the British mandated Togoland, which formed what was then known as the Gold Coast, but the boundary was drawn in such a way that both communities were riven apart. I suspect that that was because the boundaries were drawn by diplomats in France who had neither knowledge nor insight of the peoples concerned.
Another illustration that is very much more poignantly with us is the tragedy surrounding the Kurdish peoples in the Middle East and the Armenian people in Turkey and in the Caucasus. They are examples of peoples who straddle the international frontiers. Their fate is the sorry story of what happens if one seeks to divide people between two independent jurisdictions. That provides enough illustration of the kind of injustice that may be perpetrated in regard to the people of Ocean Island or the Banabans if we disregard their wish to be placed under sole jurisdiction.
I should like to reiterate some of the things that were dealt with by the hon. Member for Essex, South-East, with whom I had the pleasure of visiting these islands last spring. Whatever may be said to the contrary, it is clear that the history of Ocean Island for centuries was different from that of the rest of the Gilbert and Ellice Islands. The people concerned were separated physically since they were divided by water, but for a long time they lived in ignorance of each other.
When the time came when the body of the Gilberts proper and Ocean Island


came to be part of the British administration, the assumption of British sovereignty took place at different times and in different ways. The Gilberts were constituted in 1888 as a British colony. Ocean Island was annexed separately in 1900 and remained separately administered. The two were merged without either party or any of the parties being consulted.
That was not particularly outrageous, because in early days of colonial administration there were no means of assessing and securing the consensus of the people concerned. But it points to the separateness and identity of the two peoples. It has already been said that in social structure, in many aspects of customs, anthropology and to a considerable degree in language there was never a complete merging of the two peoples.
The important point was that, following the Japanese invasion, the people of Ocean Island were dispersed to the winds. The fact that the people were settled elsewhere marks the point of no return—the point at which those identifiable differences to which I have referred crystallised into a permanent separateness of identity. One can say that things might have been different if events had taken a different turn. But the fact remains that for 30 years the bulk of Ocean Islanders have lived separately and a long way away from the Gilbertees.
They did not return. This is something that left a nasty taste in the mouth for the hon. Member for Essex, South-East and me. Whatever the original excuse for their not returning, and there were good reasons in the devastation of the immediate post-war period, they have been discouraged at every turn by the Government of the Gilbert and Ellice Islands and by the officials of the British Phosphate Commission. I shall not refer to any court action. My criticism and strictures against the Commission refer to its behaviour towards the Banabans and the British administration which has been treated in a high-handed and cavalier fashion in the manner of some John Company mandarins of the eighteenth century.
The Banaban people have been denied the right to re-enter the territory which is undisputably proprietorially their own. Not long after they settled on Rabi, there was a declaration of intent which conceded

their right of re-entry. It was made in 1947 and has never been properly honoured.
From my investigations and what the hon. Member for Essex, South-East and I were able to discover from our talks in the Pacific, these people have a commendable realism. They do not claim to be able to transfer en bloc back to the island they once owned. Without commenting on any legal action, I can say that in an age when ecology is rightly a concept in vogue, the idea of leaving a territory in a state of wilderness offends against all we believe to be right in relation to the husbanding of the resources of the earth. The Banaban people believe they could rehabilitate 500 of the 2,500 people who form their community. Those 500 could return to Ocean Island and they see themselves as affiliates of Fiji, with which they have lived in amity for many years.
It will not be enough for the Minister to say that these people cannot be allowed back because they could not exist as an independent unit. They do not claim that they could. They claim the right to return, but they realise that it would be difficult, perhaps impossible, to exist as an independent unit entity. They want to be united with their temporary homeland of Rabi and for the two territories to form part of Fiji.
Against that it will be argued that it is a long way away from Fiji and thus presents formidable administrative problems, but that argument does not wash. No one would claim that the Indonesian Republic was a model of modern government, but Indonesia comprises 3,000 islands scattered over a far wider area than the distances involved here. The independent Commonwealth country Fiji consists of 800 islands, 300 of which are inhabited. The addition of one more island does not seem likely to impose an insuperable burden on the administrative ability of the Fijian Government.
I refrain from commenting on the phosphate dispute, save to say that if it were to be argued that by hiving off Ocean Island from the Gilberts we should be denying resources to an economically modest community, that argument falls to the ground, because in a year or two that source of revenue will dry up because the phosphates will have been exhausted. The question of the economic sustenance


of the Gilberts and Ocean Island together or separately will have to be faced by us as the departing colonial Power, and, in any event, other sources of revenue will have to be found.
The story of this community has been sad and unedifying. Because the number of people involved is small, successive British Governments have been minded to sweep the matter under the carpet, with a sense of irritation that the problem distracts their attention from more compelling problems presented by more powerful people. One of the tests of a civilised community is the willingness with which it is prepared to do justice to those who are least able to assert themselves. If the Government now show towards the people of Ocean Island a willingness to make amends for the past, it will be possible for the Ocean Islanders—who have borne with fortitude long frustrations and disappointments—to regard the British Government with gratitude and be prepared to forgive the many injustices they have suffered in the past.

2.28 a.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Edward Rowlands): As you have reminded the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, we have to recognise the constraint that is imposed upon the debate by the sub judice considerations. Just as the hon. Member for Essex, South-East (Sir B. Braine) restricted himself to marginal references to the issues involved in the Banaban dispute, so shall I, in the light of the current case and the case that has just been heard, but upon which no judgment has been made.
If the hon. Member for Essex, South-East takes pride in using strong and emotive language in speaking of problems which arouse strong and emotional feelings, that is all right, but, whatever the merits of the case he put before us, his speech did not make a great contribution to it. It was littered with a number or rather snide and nastly references to the way in which we have tried to deal with the difficult problem which I and many other hon. Members recognise. He has absolutely no prerogative of justice or injustice about this or, indeed, any other case. If he believes that other hon. Members and even Ministers are

unaware of or feel no sympathy for the Banabans and the other Pacific islanders, he is being unfair and he is not doing justice to the case.
At no point during his speech did the hon. Gentleman refer to the fact that I am probably the only Minister who has visited the island. Two or three months ago, I spent a month visiting not only Ocean Island, but Rabi. That does not sound like a Minister who is not interested in the problems, or who does not care about the justice or injustice of the issues. Moreover, it does not endorse the hon. Gentleman's remark that we are sweeping the problem under the carpet.
I went first to Rabi. The hon. Gentleman has not been to Rabi, but I am sure that this is not his fault. I visited both Rabi and Ocean Island. I have talked to the distinguished Prime Minister of Fiji, Ratu Sir Kamisese Mara. I talked to the then New Zealand and Australian Prime Ministers. In Rabi I held discussions with the Banabans about their present home.
I went to Ocean Island, which is not the easiest island to reach. It is a long journey by boat, and anyone who goes there, as the distinguished Judge Megarry will testify, has problems in landing on the island in certain circumstances. Many of the hon. Gentleman's remarks, some of which I think were cheap, were not justified. Ministers do not spend a month doing what I have done and pretend that they are not interested in the problem or want to sweep it under the carpet.

Sir Bernard Braine: rose—

Mr. Rowlands: The hon. Gentleman has had his say; let me reply to his remarks, because a lot of his speech was littered with such references.
Because of the complexity of the Banaban problem and the apparently immovable barrier created by the conflicting interests of the various parties, I visited the Pacific in September for discussions not only with the main parties, the Gilbertese in Tarawa and the Banabans in Rabi and Ocean Island, but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Handsworth (Mr. Lee) recognised in a very reasoned speech, with the Australian and New Zealand Governments which, as partner Governments, are also involved.
In September I went to Australia and New Zealand to talk to both Prime Ministers and Ministers. I went with an open mind. The hon. Gentleman has made many references to this matter in past speeches. The speech he made tonight was the same as the one he has made on a number of occasions during his campaign to make sure that the Banabans get justice. I went with an open mind. My ideas were not coloured by any previous advice or advisers. I stated that I rejected no reasonable option or proposal. I was willing to look at all of them. It became increasingly obvious to me, as I proceeded through the Pacific, that there were genuine conflicts of interests to which the hon. Gentleman made scarcely any reference.
We must try to find an honourable solution to the problem, and one which will not leave one side happy because it has won everything, and the other side feeling aggrieved. I think that when the hon. Gentleman reads his speech in the cold light of morning he will not be as happy with it as he seems to be now.

Sir Bernard Braine: The hon. Gentle man has levelled several strictures at me. First, he will recollect his ill-timed intervention when he suggested that I was not speaking with any authority when I referred to my hon. Friend and I having had talks with Australian Ministers and officials. The inference which could be drawn from that remark is that I was not addressing myself to the facts of the case. He is wrong.
Secondly, had the hon. Gentleman listened to what I said, he would know that at no time have we suggested—we did not suggest in our report—that a solution should be found which would be unfair to either one party or the other. So far the Minister has not given a single answer to any of the points that I made with particular reference to the resolutions passed at the joint meeting at Tarawa. The House would like some information.

Mr. Rowlands: If the hon. Gentleman will desist from making a second speech, I will describe to him what I found and give my view of the situation.
Everyone is conscious of the strength of feeling of the Banabans about their

grievances. They have a feeling of having been neglected both before and during the phosphate era. I sympathise with them and all the other island communities of the South Pacific. Having visited some of the coral atolls, I realise the difficulties facing those who are trying to establish prosperous communities on small islands with such minimal resources.
I went to Tarawa in September and asked the Council of Ministers the same question as that posed by my hon. Friend the Member for Handsworth and the hon. Gentleman. I asked what they thought about an independent Ocean Island seceded, as it were, to the Banabans. They were strongly opposed to that idea. They had not only financial but strong historical and constitutional reasons for not allowing the island to be separated. The hon. Gentleman does no good to his cause by ignoring that strong feeling of sentiment.
The decision on the constitutional issue, which the hon. Gentleman chose to make the major part of his speech, was to put it in abeyance and not deal with it at present.
This is not just a financial matter. I asked the Gilbertese Government whether, if the issue of finance were resolved, they would allow Ocean Island to go. They said "No." They felt that, as it had been part of their territory for 75 years, their claim, in constitutional terms, was as legitimate as the alternative claim by the Banabans.
I have not taken sides on this issue. We have been trying to discover whether there is any common ground between the parties. Of course, they may change their minds. I shall wait to see what emerges from the continuing discussions. However, when I asked the Chief Minister and the other Ministers whether they would allow Ocean Island to go if the issue of finance were resolved, they said "No.".
There is a conflict of interest on the constitutional issue. It is idle for the hon. Gentleman to pretend that there is not. I am not saying that they will not change their minds. Discussions are continuing and have gone on both in Tarawa and last week in Nauru. Some consensus of view might be achieved on the constitutional issue in the petition for independence. If so, we shall be interested to try to meet their wishes.
The hon. Gentleman said that I had not answered any of his points. I have stated what I found to be the position. The conflict of interest cannot easily be swept under the carpet, as he suggested. There may seem to be an evolving or changing view on this issue, but, as I understand it from the joint resolution and from the meeting under the chairmanship of Sir Kamisese Mara, they wish to leave the constitutional relationship in abeyance, pending questions of financial provision for the future.
But hon. Members must not question my sincerity. The Gilbertese Ministers told me in Tarawa that their constitutional relationship with Ocean Island was not only a financial matter. They might have changed their minds since then, but I would have to see more definite information and we must concede that this point of view has to be considered.

Mr. Lee: I must ask my hon. Friend to develop that argument. Was the non-financial consideration the fear of progressive fragmentation? If it was, one could argue, as I have, that Ocean Island has had a different history ab initio. In other words, it could not be used as a precedent for other islands in the Gilbert Group to claim the right to go their own way as well.

Mr. Rowlands: We spent some time discussing that, but I do not wish to spell out what was said, because some of it was in confidence. There was a general uneasiness about fragmentation, but I do not wish to exaggerate the point, because it might create further division and my aim is to find a common ground rather than to discuss differences.
The island has been an integral part of their territory for a long time—for the lifetime of most of the Ministers and the people who govern the colony at present. That is the general feeling that came across, but it could change, and it might change as a result of the way in which the two sides have been getting together. Maybe we shall see some common ground emerge.
I suggested that the Gilbertese should attend the meeting in Tawara. I said that I thought that it was a good idea for the two parties to get together. It is easy for two parties to get together and agree to demand enormous sums of

money from Britain and the partner Governments. Indeed, one of the terms of the resolution conveys that, and we accept that. They have both said that they would like a great deal of money from the partner Governments. I thought that there was value in the meeting, and I supported it as I support the meetings which they have had in recent weeks in an effort to find some common ground. Nobody can demand a large sum of money and insist that that is the only solution which they can agree—and there is an element of that in one of the resolutions. I do not know yet how much common ground will be found, but that is what I want to work towards.
My hon. Friend the Member for Handsworth made a reasoned speech about the history of the issues, but some other points were strongly made by the hon. Member for Essex, South-East. I intervened in his speech not to deny that he had met Australian ministers and officials, but to challenge the partial view he expressed—that it was the British Government alone who were dragging their feet and preventing an agreed policy—

Sir Bernard Braine: They should have taken the initiative.

Mr. Rowlands: The implication was that everything would be all right if the British Government took the lead. That is why I went to talk to the New Zealand and Australian Ministers and officials—because I had heard this. I found, as the hon. Member did, a great deal of sympathy for solving the problem. Those exploratory talks are now being followed up. The hon. Member will know the reasons why we have not been able to pursue them as quickly as we should have liked. There have been considerable political changes in both countries ever since my visit in late September. We must discover whether there will be any changes in attitude.
We had some interesting exploratory talks. At no time did either Government say that they thought that the British Government were responsible for the situation. They wanted to find a joint approach. I took the initiative in that respect, in seeking with them a common policy to deal with the sense of injustice in Ocean Island and the Gilberts generally.
Although the initial talks were useful, they did not produce an immediate agreed view. There are some differences of emphasis and it is my duty to try to resolve them. This is how we look at the other proposal for the calling of an immediate joint conference of all parties. I have not slammed the door on a joint conference. There could be considerable merit in a round table conference.
But anyone involved in these issues knows that a great deal of preparation would be required. There must be essential preparatory work. More consultations would be needed before we could launch a successful conference. I have responded sympathetically to the suggestion of the Prime Minister of Fiji, but we should not rush into it. If we did and it was abortive and led to yet another chapter of bitterness and disagreement, a just solution would be even further away.
I do not wish to sweep anything under the carpet. I have the same objective as both hon. Members who have spoken tonight—a fair and honourable solution to a difficult problem beset both by history and the social difficulties of these communities. That is what I am trying to work towards. It will not be the same answer as the hon. Member for Essex, South-East wants, but it will be one that I can recommend to the House in honour and justice.

Orders of the Day — FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH NATIONALS (WORK PERMITS)

2.40 a.m.

Mr. Arthur Jones: I have a long-standing interest in the admission of Commonwealth and foreign persons to the United Kingdom, stemming from arrangements entered into soon after the end of the last war, under which recruitment took place, mainly in Southern Italy, of labour to man the brick-making industry in Bedfordshire and elsewhere. Many Italians who arrived here settled permanently in the town and now play their part in the life of the community in Bedford and district.
It was a short report in The Times of 11th February last which brought to my attention the fact that after the imposition of a temporary ban in 1973 the Secretary

of State for Employment had announced that work permits
are to be permitted once again for unskilled workers from the Philippines, with new safeguards".
These were then set out, and later in the piece it said that
A quote of 8,000 for resident domestic workers, including hospital nursing auxiliaries, will be introduced. Hotel staff and catering workers who have completed recognised courses abroad will be allowed in outside the new overall quota for the industry of 8,500.
I was concerned from that report to try to establish the terms of entry that were to be required and the situation that faced the incomers, in terms of both the employment and administrative problems that faced the Government. My inquiry at that time, therefore, was addressed to the Minister of State at the Home Office.
I quite understood why the reply came from the Under-Secretary of State for Employment, who elaborated a little beyond what appears to have been said in the Press release from which the reporter in The Times may have been quoting. In a letter to me dated 26th March, the Minister said
This now means that skilled or semi-skilled hotel workers and resident domestics will be able to come here again from the Philippines … there are quotas for 8,500 for the hotel industry (but unskilled catering workers may only he recruited from Europe and North America) and 8,000 for domestics and hospital workers … I do not expect an excessive number to come from the Philippines although they are generally reckoned to be good workers—but we shall keep the situation under review.
It is fair to assume that the implications in the terms of that letter is that not all those admitted on work permits are good workers, and that raises the question of what judgments are made as to whether they are good workers and suitable for employment in this country. I shall welcome whatever assurance is possible. The Minister way wish to refer, in addition, to the question whether adequate medical standards are being ensured. What evidence is required in that respect?
The terms of the Department of Employment temporary leaflet OW5 lead to a number of questions. Page 5, paragraph 7 reads:
A permit does not constitute a contract of employment between an employer and an overseas worker. It does not authorise an employer to keep the worker in his employment if he does not wish to remain, nor does


the employer require permission to terminate the employment. The worker will not be permanently restricted to the particular job for which his permit was issued, but will be expected to remain in the same type of employment and will require the permission of the Department of Employment before he takes another job.… Changes of employment authorised by the Department of Employment will be recorded in the certificate of employment for Commonwealth citizens and in the police certificate of registration for foreigners. Foreigners are required to register with the police if they are given leave to enter for more than three months.
Here, again, there are some important implications for the admission and subsequent movement of foreign nationals in the United Kingdom. They are not tied to the job for which a certificate of employment is issued and there is also the problem associated with housing and accommodation for workers coming in under this form of entry.
I am concerned that they need to register with the police, and I wonder to what extent those registers are kept up to date. Does the responsibility lie with the Metropolitan Police or, if the employment is elsewhere in the country, with one of the various police forces? What social security arrangements are made for these immigrant workers? The same applies to the health and welfare services. Are these people entitled to unemployment benefit? What information is available about the number of applications that go to the Home Office—because the next paragraph in the document says that
After four years in approved employment they may apply to the Home Office for the removal of the time limit on their stay.
Can the Minister say how many of those admitted stay longer? What about those who wish to change their jobs? How is that monitored, and to what extent is the administration effective for foreigners in employment here? What records are kept by the Home Office? I recognise that the Minister will not be able to speak for that Department, but I am in possession of a letter which may enable me to give a partial answer to that question.
If no application is made for the removal of the time limit on staying, what steps are taken by the Department of Employment and the Home Office with regard to those who enter? Where does the responsibility lie for foreign workers

subsequent to entry? Does it depart entirely from the Department of Employment and go to the Home Office, or is there some division of responsibility for these persons? Are any of those granted entry required to return to their country of origin because of any shortcomings that may be found or because of inadequate registration? If so, what procedures exist for this, and whose responsibility is it to operate them?
The level of entry is significant. I was surprised when I saw the number of permits which are issued both for long-and short-term engagements. In 1973, 6,379 Commonwealth certificates and no fewer than 26,460 certificates for foreign nationals were issued. In the following year 8,536 Commonwealth admission orders and 24,509 entry permits were issued. According to the November edition of the Department of Employment Gazette, page 1159, for the third quarter of this year 2,190 Commonwealth permits and 5,932 foreign ones were issued, giving a total for the three quarters of this year for men and women of 6,716 Commonwealth certificates and 18,313 foreign ones. If one projects that to the end of the year, it looks as though in the past three years about 25,000 permits have been issued for Commonwealth nationals and about 75,000 for foreign nationals. Is it possible to say how many have left Britain in those three years? What records give this information, and by which Department are they maintained?
To some extent the answer is given in a letter dated 30th June that I received from the Minister of State, Home Office. I was surprised at the terms of the letter, which said:
I am afraid we keep no record of the numbers of foreign nationals who return to their native countries at the end of the period covered by their work permits, but over a period of several years the number of foreign workers who remain here for the four years rquired to qualify them for removal of the limits on their stay has been about one-third of the number who entered 4 years previously with work permits initially for 12 months.… The Immigration Rules require that a foreign worker must be able and willing to support and accommodate his dependants without recourse to public funds. It has not so far been found practicable to direct foreign workers to areas where the housing shortage is less acute".
This is entirely unsatisfactory. What we are allowing, apparently, is the entry


of these significant numbers of foreign nationals on work permits, with no social service support ensured for them. How many permits are issued? They may stay in that job or not, as they wish, or as their employer decides. They enter the country with a work permit. Once they are here, they flow into the community at large and no record is kept either of their continued work in the job for which the permit was issued or of whether they return.
A cumulative total is being built up over a period of years. Seventy-five thousand are likely to have come in in the three years up to 31st December of this year. No effective records are maintained of what happens to them, where they go, how many go home, and so on. If it is said that there is no need to keep a record, that this is an open-ended commitment, that is understandable. I have been told on numerous occasions that the inflow is maintained according to some judgment, but it does not seem to be anything effective.
Mr. Alfred Sherman, in an article in the Local Government Review dated 15th March, said:
The newcomers were recruited consciously to fill the worst housing and the lowest-paid jobs in the stress areas, thereby increasing stress
and, as the author says elsewhere,
developing an underclass of third world origins in London and other large cities.
They are harsh words. They are not words that I would use.
We are undoubtedly recruiting unskilled and semi-skilled workers for entry into the United Kingdom and making no provision other than in terms of the entry work permit. Their jobs are bound to be in the large cities and urban areas and, I suspect, mainly in London. One would expect that to be so, because it is much easier to get here and this is where their friends and compatriots are. This is adding to the tremendous social and housing problems that we face in London and the other great urban areas.
It is a fair question to put to the hon. Gentleman: do the Government have full regard to the social and community problems that their policies involve? The admission that the Home Office does not keep records of those workers who return to their native country concerns me. So does the obvious weakness of a system

which apparently allows workers to break the terms of their permits with very little prospect of retribution. Although sanctions exist, it seems that in the absence of regular checks they can rarely be brought into operation. While I appreciate that when investigations are being made into individual cases there is excellent co-ordination between the Government Departments concerned, but my complaint is that only in isolated cases is the effective monitoring of the movement of foreign workers, once in this country, achieved.
I cannot conceive how, without much more accurate knowledge of the existing situation, their impact on housing, health, education and our administration generally can be assessed. Nor do I understand how, without any clear idea of the number of foreign workers who have so far been absorbed into our society, any reliable estimate can be made with regard to our continuing ability to accommodate more.
What criteria are used for admission? It cannot be job vacancies, bearing in mind the present levels of unemployment. Is it employment applications? I see that a significant number are let in for seasonal work. Department of Employment leaflet OW6 says, in paragraph 7:
Permits for workers to take unskilled jobs in the hotel and catering industry are issued only for work between 1st March and 31st October each year. Permission will not be given for workers to remain in this category of employment after 31st October.
What happens after 31st October? Does the Department know where these people are? Are they required to maintain their registration with the police, and do the police have the time, the manpower and the motivation to see that on 31st October each year the number who came in on seasonal work permits—and they run into thousands, in terms of foreign nationals—are required to return to their country of origin?
I wonder, too, why there is this sudden surge of nationals from the Philippines. We have a clear obligation to the Commonwealth generally, and many immigrant workers from the Commonwealth are suitable for work in the hotel and catering industry—we see them at work as we go around, particularly at London airport—but why are these substantial numbers of foreign workers allowed in, particularly Filipinos who come from a


different ethnic and social background from the the one that they enter in the United Kingdom? Their standards are different, they have language problems, and there are problems of all sorts that could be avoided if recruitment were done elsewhere. It would be interesting to know why there was this sudden decision to allow in this number of Asians from the Philippines.
I mention only briefly the matter of unemployment in this country in the context of admissions. I am referring to the Department of Employment Gazette for November 1975, page 1198 of which gives some unemployment figures. In September 1973 there were 545,400 unemployed, or 2·4 per cent. of the working population. In 1974 the figures were 647,100, or 2·8 per cent. In September of this year nearly twice that number were unemployed—1,194,300, or 5·2 per cent. of the working population.
It is difficult to see how the Government can justify this continued employment of foreign nationals, both from the Commonwealth and elsewhere, in the light of our changing circumstances. Upon what basis are they continued to be allowed in? There is no evidence as I see it, to support this action. I have looked back through Hansard to try to establish whether statements on this subject have been made in the past. In view of the almost continuing rise in unemployment, how can the level of work permits for this year be justified? What are the proposals for 1976, during which I think we are likely to see unemployment continuing to rise?
There is widespread questioning of policies which, in the context of our present economic difficulties and rising unemployment, still encourage and permit the issue of work permits to both Commonwealth and foreign workers. Those with special skills to maintain some of our services are in the special categories. I recognise that. But the testing of foreign doctors employed in the National Health Service was revealing in recent months, in terms of the rate of failure in the examinations that were set. I make no judgment on that.
The House and the country will be interested to know the Government's thinking and future proposals in this field of industrial and social policy.

3.11 a.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Harold Walker): The hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Jones) has raised a number of matters about which, he rightly reminded us, he has been expressing concern for a considerable time. I have studied the correspondence that he has had with Ministers of both my Department and the Home Office. Some of the points that he has raised have been dealt with—although, as I readily accept, perhaps not to his satisfaction—in the letters that he has received.
I think that the hon. Gentleman will frankly recognise that some of the points that he has mentioned are matters not for me and my Department but falling within the responsibility of the Home Office and perhaps other Departments, and they are matters, therefore, with which it would be quite inappropriate for me to try to deal tonight. Some of the issues that the hon. Gentleman has raised are part of the wider issues of immigration policy, for which the Home Office is responsible. Likewise, the question of monitoring, about which the hon. Gentleman expressed considerable concern, is a matter for the Home Office and not for my Department.
I must tell the hon. Gentleman that, effectively, responsibility subsequent to the issue of a work permit ceases to be that of the Department of Employment.
The hon. Gentleman raised matters concerning social security payment and provision. Here again, I think that he would not expect me to try to deal with them in my reply.
I recognise, however, the general anxiety that underlies the hon. Gentleman's speech. I think that he is right in saying that it is an anxiety that is shared by other people—perhaps inevitably so at a time when unemployment is certainly very much higher than any of us would wish it to be. Workers, in particular, understandably look critically at anything that may appear to them to jeopardise their job prospects. I hope, however, that this debate will give me an opportunity to ease some of the anxiety to which the hon. Member has referred and to correct one or two misunderstandings—and particularly one which I think the hon. Gentleman has about Filipino workers.
It might be helpful if I first set out rather fully the conditions and the circumstances in which overseas workers enter this country. The employment of overseas workers in Great Britain is controlled by a work permit scheme which since 1973 has applied equally to workers from all countries outside the EEC. Of course, as the hon. Gentleman reminded us, a work permit scheme has been with us for many years and has been applied by successive Governments. The change in the application of the scheme was very fully debated by the House in 1972 and again in 1973, and subsequently approved by Parliament. I do not want to make too strong a point of the fact that on that occasion the hon. Gentleman voted for the rules we are now discussing and I voted against them; we know the way in which these things work in the House.
People in a limited number of professions—doctors, dentists, ministers of religion, journalists working for overseas newspapers, and so on—do not require work permits but do need authority from the Home Office in order to take work here. All other workers who do not have the right of abode in the United Kingdom need work permits to present on entry if they intend to take employment in this country. People already in this country as visitors, students, and so on, may apply to have the landing conditions in their passports altered to enable them to take work, but the same conditions will apply to them as to all applications for work permits. Although the application for that change is made to the Home Office, the alteration is subject to the approval of the Department of Employment.
The basic conditions for the issue of a work permit are that the worker has to be aged between 18 and 54, that the wages and conditions of service offered by the employer are not less favourable than those generally applicable for the same sort of work in the district, and that the employer has made adequate attempts to obtain labour from the resident work force. I emphasise these conditions—in particular, that if suitable labour is already available, no permit will be issued.
In industry, the professions and commerce permits are generally issued only for skilled or professionally-qualified

people to do jobs for which their particular skills are necessary and to fill vacancies for which the employer has been unable to recruit resident workers. The Department of Employment obtains information about the availability of resident labour and the pay and conditions of the job from local offices of the Employment Services Agency.
The hotel and catering industry is exceptionally allowed also to recruit unskilled and semi-skilled workers within an overall quota of permits—8,500 in 1975—for men and women of all levels of skill. Unskilled catering workers are admitted only for seasonal work from March to October, from Europe or North America, and must return home at the end of the season.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the Question to my right hon. Friend that he has tabled for oral answer on 20th January, in which he refers to a 1975 quota of 8,500 work permits for Filipinos. I think he will see from what I have just said that the Press statement to which he referred may have been misleading. I am not necessarily blaming the newspaper. The figure of 8,500 is for the whole hotel and catering industry, irrespective of source. It is not a question of 8,500 work permits being available for Filipinos to enter the hotel and catering industry. In so far as Filipino labour is admitted into this country for hotels and catering, the numbers will be subsumed within the aggregate of 8,500.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the rather surprising surge of applications from the Philippines in recent years. I understand that this may well be because of the zealous work of employment agencies in the Philippines in recruiting workers for employment in the United Kingdom. We hope to make fully effective the Employment Agencies Act 1973 by introducing, next summer, the Regulations for which the Act calls. I am hopeful that they will exercise a degree of control that is now lacking on the activities of such agencies.
My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary has recently consulted both sides of industry about the quota for 1976. He has not yet reached his decision. I am sure that he will have full regard to our present levels of unemployment and the fact that there will be workers in our own labour


force seeking jobs. I stress that the Government's objective, like that of our predecessor, is the phasing out of reliance on overseas workers in the hotel and catering industry.
The hon. Gentleman was also kind enough to draw to my attention a Question that he has tabled to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, the substance of which he dealt with in his speech. It would be wrong for me to anticipate my right hon. Friend's reply or seek to deal with a matter that is not within my Department's responsibility.
Outside of industry and commerce, permits are issued for overseas workers to take jobs as resident domestics in private households, hospitals, schools and similar institutions, or as nursing auxiliaries in hospitals. These are numerically controlled by a quota, and 8,000 were issued in 1975. Permits for domestics are issued only where the work is full-time and resident. Permits are not granted for those who have children under the age of 16, and are issued only for single men and women and married couples taking joint posts. Permits for nursing auxiliaries are issued only for single men and single women without dependants.
There are other special quotas of permits for people from the Commonwealth, and a total of 1,000 permits is available for workers from Malta and the dependent territories and 500 for United Kingdom passport holders who are unable to qualify for work permits under the normal criteria. As in the case of hotel and catering, to which I have already referred, these quotas are being reviewed, and of course we shall have to have full regard to our own present problems of unemployment.
There are opportunities for young people from abroad to work in this country under special arrangements. The "student employee" scheme allows for young foreign people to come here for up to a year to widen their business experience and improve their knowledge of English. They have to be employed in a supernumerary capacity and can be paid only a maintenance allowance. Commonwealth citizens may also qualify for permits to enable them to undertake limited periods of training with employers in Great Britain. These permits are

issued on the understanding that at the end of the period of training both foreign and commonwealth citizens will return to their own countries.
Other work permit holders may apply for extension of stay at the end of their initial period, which is a maximum of one year and this is usually granted. Changes of employer are allowed, subject to permission being sought from and given by the Department of Employment, but overseas workers must remain in the same occupation while they are subject to employment restrictions. After four years in approved employment application may be made for removal of these conditions, and if the application is approved the worker from overseas is then free to seek any employment.
Let me now turn to the figures which the hon Gentleman has put before the House and develop them a little further. The total number of work permits issued for the years from and including 1970 are as follows: 1970, 53,156; 1971, 45,399; 1972, 36,690; 1973, 35,646; and 1974, 35,167. I am not sure whether my figure tallies exactly with the hon. Gentleman's, but for the first nine months of this year the figure is 26,586. The hon. Gentleman broke down the periods to which he referred as between the permits for foreigners and those for people coming from the Commonwealth. I have the figures broken down in a similar fashion for the whole of the period to which I have referred. I do not know whether the House would wish me to weary it at this late hour with all the statistics, but if the hon. Gentleman would like that breakdown I should be glad to give it to him. For the early years of that period EEC nationals have been purposely excluded so that the figures for 1970, 1971 and 1972 provide a valid comparison.

Mr. Arthur Jones: I have roughly totalled the figures for the period the hon. Gentleman has dealt with, and they come to about 220,000. Is it possible for him to say how many of those people have returned or are still in this country?

Mr. Walker: I must stress that the responsibility of my Department effectively ceases once the permit has been issued. Monitoring is the responsibility of the Home Office. Clearly I cannot answer on behalf of the Home Office.


I know that that is not very helpful to the hon. Gentleman but, as he told the House, he has corresponded with my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Home Office on precisely this point and on other matters. I cannot add to what he has been told by my hon. Friend.

Mr. Arthur Jones: It may be an unfair question to ask the Minister, but does he regard it as a sensible arrangement that one Department should allow the people in and then take no further responsibility in the matter?

Mr. Walker: The responsibility of my Department is clearly to vet applications, to see whether they meet the basic criteria and correspond to the circumstances in which permits should be issued. I do not think I should trespass on the responsibility of another Minister in another Department.
The important point about the figures is that there is a progressive reduction each year. It is a fallacy to seek to suggest that each year permits are being granted in increasing numbers. Clearly that is incorrect. Details about permits are set out each quarter in the Department of Employment Gazette and the figures are available in the Library.
I know that the hon. Gentleman is less concerned with the actual numbers than with the effective control of people in this category who are already here, but again I doubt whether I can usefully add to the contents of the letter quoted by the hon. Gentleman.
I have acknowledged the anxieties that exist on these issues, and the hon. Gentleman put his case to the House in a restrained and reasonable way. But they are sensitive matters in an area in which there is already misunderstanding about the numbers admitted and the circumstances of their admission. In the difficult phase through which we are passing these misunderstandings, if not corrected or carefully handled, may give rise to serious problems. Therefore I hope that what has been said in this debate will contribute to a balanced understanding of the situation.

Orders of the Day — REAR-ADMIRAL C. C. H. DUNLOP (PENSION)

3.28 a.m.

Mr. Patrick Mayhew: I make no apology for raising the case of a constituent because the unjust anomaly of his case is only representative of quite a large number of other cases affecting officers who, since 1973, have retired from the Armed Services. The injustice is, however, displayed with particular clarity in the instance that I am about to outline, and it is therefore to the facts of my constituent's case that I shall address my remarks.
Contrary to usual practice, but, I hope, helpfully at this hour, I shall put the summary at the beginning. Admiral Dunlop by 1973 had served in the Royal Navy for 39 years. He was then 55 and was entitled to retire. He had earned the maximum rate of retired pay for his rank. But he had held the appointment of Flag Officer Medway and Port Admiral Chatham since October 1971. He was asked to stay on until the end of January 1974, when his relief would be appointed. He did so, with the result that following terminal leave he retired from the Service in April 1974.
What is the result? It means that £445 a year has been lopped off the pension that he would now be drawing if he had retired in 1973. If he dies before his wife—and if I were he I should stand to be carried off by apoplexy at any minute—her widow's pension will be reduced by, on my calculation, £175 per year, but I understand that the actual figure will be closer to £200.
I think I have probably overstated the case by saying that Rear-Admiral Dunlop was requested by the Secretary of State to postpone his retirement. It is correct to say that he was asked to stay on until January 1974 so that the relief might be appointed, and it was not until April 1974 that his retirement took place. Next year and in succeeding years the disparity between his pension and the pension he would have drawn had he retired in 1973 will grow even greater.
There is a sound maxim in common law that where there is a wrong, there should be a remedy. That should also be a maxim of government. I am grateful to the Minister for being here tonight. I first raised the matter with him on


23rd June, but his Department knew about it 11 months previously. Yet still nothing has been done. It is an absurd injustice.
The pensions of retired Service officers are governed by retired pay codes which link retirement pay to the pay on the Active List at the time of retirement. Pensions are subject to Orders in Council which achieve for the Services what the Pensions (Increase) Acts of 1971 and 1974 achieve for civil servants and ensure that pensions keep step with any rise in the cost of living. This is a happy state of affairs, envied by those of us in the House and many thousands of people elsewhere.
Active List pay was subject to the provisions of the last Government's counter-inflation policy. It was restricted by stages 1, 2 and 3 in 1973 and 1974. How distant seem those days when inflation was merely in single figures.
The effect is that officers who retired in 1972 are better off, in real terms, than those who retired a year later. They got their full increases in a basic rate that had not been held down by a counter-inflation policy. Those retiring in 1974 are in an even worse relative position. It was for this reason that the Government introduced the Pensions (Increase) Act for Civil Service pensions and made similar Orders in Council for Service pensions. They saw that this had to be put right and it was put right.
A rear-admiral retiring in 1973 had his pension brought up to £5,658—the sum that he would have been getting by then if he had retired in 1972. This became the new base rate upon which the provision of the inflation-proofing Order in Council would operate. An unjust anomaly had arisen and the Government had taken steps to put it right.
If Admiral Dunlop had resisted the request that he should serve on until April 1974 and had retired at the end of 1973, as he could have done, he would, without question, be enjoying the benefits of those Orders today. By falling in with the interests of the Service, as one would expect of an officer of his standing, and agreeing to serve on into 1974, he has been seriously penalised.
The class of '74 received much harsher treatment. Its members received no

compensation for the reduction in their pensions brought about by the effects of stage 3 on their last year of Active Service pay. Compared with their colleagues who retired in 1973, their pensions will fall further and further behind.
For those retiring this year, the Boyle Report and the Government's acceptance of it have come to the rescue. A rear admiral retiring this year gets, in round figures, £5,280 a year. Those retiring in 1972 get today £7,133 and those who retired in 1973 receive the same amount. Those retiring in 1974—that is, Admiral Dunlop's category—dropped to £6,690. Those retiring in 1975 will get £7,275 but at the moment, because the Pay Code has not been adjusted, they get £5,820. For 1972 and 1973 there is level pegging—those who retired in 1974 take a drop of £445—and then the figures go up. The disparity will increase as the years go by.
There is a further twist to the story of Admiral Dunlop so exquisite in its subtlety as to drive to violence anyone with less than naval phlegm. When he was permitted to retire in April 1974, no doubt with the grateful thanks of the Secretary of State, he did so on the 1973 Pay Code, because it ran over into 1974. It was the current code. The 1974 code was no more than a twinkle in the eye of a kindly official. When it was brought in in June 1974, unbelievably, the 1974 code operated retroactively so as to bring in everyone who had retired after 31st March 1974 and Admiral Dunlop was brought into the 1974 code. Had the admiral been allowed to stay on the 1973 code on which he retired, all would have been well, but he was brought off the 1973 code into the 1974 code. There was thus removed from him retrospectively the benefit of statutory provisions today worth the annual sum of £445. That is the story. It is worthy almost of the great Beachcomber, who no longer will write in the Daily Express now that he has reached the age of 81.
I turn, briefly, to the response of the Government to suggestions that they might care to correct so absurd an injustice. Two courses of action have been offered to them, both extremely sensible. The first was that as Admiral Dunlop stayed on for the extra part of a year at the express request of the Navy he should be exempt from any penalty that


the Government might see fit to impose on the class of 1974 relative to the class of 1973. The second alternative was that if that suggestion was too much for the Government Admiral Dunlop should be permitted to revert to the 1973 code, from whose provisions he had in July—when he had a letter to this effect—been retrospectively removed. He acknowledges that in that event he would have to pay back the appropriate proportion of his terminal grant.
So far, neither of those suggestions has been accepted. The first is so obviously equitable as to call for no further argument from me. To allow, let alone to ask, a man to go the extra mile and make him worse off for ever after, is hardly consistent with most people's idea of decent behaviour.
If there is some hidden snag in that course of action, let Admiral Dunlop revert to the 1973 code, upon which he would in the ordinary event have retired, and did retire, until he was removed from it by retroactive Order in Council. He has twice been told by a senior official of under-secretary rank in the Ministry of Defence that he has the right to revert to the 1973 code. Letters to that effect are dated 6th August and 23rd October 1974. That was the official view, no doubt formed on the basis of legal advice available to the Department.
It was greatly to his surprise that Admiral Dunlop learned from the Minister on 6th May this year that in the Minister's view there was no reserved right for him to revert to the 1973 code. I hope to hear tonight that the Minister has made up his mind to do justice. I wrote to him on 23rd June, and I raise the matter tonight only because I have had nothing but holding replies from him since then.
This has dragged on long enough. Numerous other officers have found themselves worse off than those who retired before them. At present, rear-admirals who retire in 1975 are worse off than rear-admirals who have retired in the past 10 years.
I hope that the Minister will say that his Department will now adopt one or other of the two alternatives which I have suggested and that the arrears incurred by the Department in the payment of this officer's pension will then be made up.

4.41 a.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Navy (Mr. Frank Judd): The House should be grateful to the hon. and learned Gentleman for raising this issue which, as he has stressed, is particularly difficult and complex, with wide repercussions going beyond the personal case of Rear-Admiral Dunlop himself; I should like to take this opportunity to pay my tribute to a very distinguished officer with an outstanding record of service to the country and the Navy. It may help, therefore, if I first give the House a brief picture of the broader problem. Pensions in the Services are determined, of course, by reference to pay. When pay changes, the pensions to be awarded to those leaving the Service in that year are reassessed in proportion. Separately, there is a system of pension increases applying to those already in receipt of pensions and this is linked to the retail price index. The broad practical effect of this arrangement in recent years has been that pensions awarded to those leaving the Service, and the increased pension of those who have already left, have kept roughly in step.
As the hon. and learned Gentleman has said, the last Conservative Government's statutory pay policy gave rise to some problems. Under the original pay standstill and then stage 2 of that policy, increases in pay were restricted to an amount less than the proportionate increase in the retail price index, which, as I have said, is the basis for determining pension increases. Thus, those leaving the Services in the period between April 1973 and April 1974, would have received smaller pensions—the hon. and learned Gentleman made this point—than their predecessors as enhanced by pension increases. This problem, of course, went much wider than the Services.
The last Conservative Government took steps to deal with the situation by way of awarding extra pension increases under the Pensions (Increase) Act 1974. However, this was intended only to cover those affected by stage 2 of the counter-inflation policy and did not apply during stage 3. Subsequently, the 1974 pay increases for the Services largely removed the anomalies, except in respect of a comparatively small number of senior officers. A similar situation arose in the


public sector generally. The Pensions (Increase) Act 1974 does not provide for a general remedy, and we did not feel justified in making special provision in the Pensions Regulations.
However, it has since appeared that the officers affected may, indeed, have a claim concerning reserved rights by way of certain provisions in the prerogative instruments relating to Service pensions. When taken together, these have the unintended effect of giving these officers the right to elect to receive a pension under an earlier and more favourable code. For example, the provision under the Order in Council affecting Naval pensions, allows an officer who was serving on 31st March 1974 to receive, in place of the 1974 code award, a pension under the previous code.
The true purpose of such provisions, which have existed since long before the current system of pension increases, was simply to provide protection where there had been detailed changes made in the pension rules. I must emphasise that it had never been the intention to provide a guarantee against changing pension rates, as such.
Having now considered the matter comprehensively, and recognising that it would put 200 senior officers in a more favourable position than their colleagues in the public service generally, we are clear that, as the right exists, it cannot very well be denied. If, therefore, these officers exercise their option, they will be eligible for the subsequent pension increases attaching to pensions under the appropriate earlier code for their service.
The precise benefit for each officer—I note what the hon. and learned Gentleman said about arrears, and so on—would vary according to rank and individual circumstances. It will obviously and inevitably take a little time for the details to be worked out for those officers who, like Rear-Admiral Dunlop, may feel that it is in their interests to elect to exercise this option, although as I have argued, I believe that it was an unintended option.
We have had to accept the existence of the legal right to this option, but I must stress that we shall have to take steps to remove it for those retiring in future. It is clearly essential that arrangements

for Service officers are in line with those for the public sector generally.
I again express my gratitude to the hon. and learned Gentleman for having given me this opportunity, albeit at a late hour, to clarify the situation.

Orders of the Day — EDUCATION EXPENDITURE (SCOTLAND)

3.47 a.m.

Mrs. Margaret Bain: It is with some misgivings that I rise at this late hour to speak yet again on the problems of Scottish education. I have been a Member of this House for 14 months, yet only 13 months ago I rose at virtually the same hour to discuss the problems of Scottish education. It is a matter of concern that we must wait until virtually four o'clock in the morning before being able to raise these important matters.
I pay tribute to the Minister, so early in his career as Under-Secretary of State with responsibility for education in Scotland, for staying to listen to my pleas on behalf of the educational system in Scotland.
I raise this matter basically because I feel that there is a failure in Vote 2, Class X, to recognise the importance of education in Scotland. In this context I should like to quote my basic philosophy, which is echoed in E. F. Schumacker's book "Small is Beautiful" in terms of education. He states:
All history—as well as all current experience—points to the fact that it is man, not nature, who provides the primary resource: that the key factor of all economic development comes out of the mind of man. Suddenly, there is an outburst of daring, initiative, invention, constructive activity, not in one field alone, but in many fields all at once. No one may be able to say where it came from in the first place; but we can see how it maintains and even strengthens itself: through various kinds of schools, in other words, through education. In a very real sense, therefore, we can say that education is the most vital of all resources.
I trust that the Minister will recognise my sincerity when I say that education is a more vital resource to Scotland than oil. The real primary resource of any nation is its people, their skills, their training, and the application of their ideas. The true investment in the future is investment in the education of our children.
I recognise that in this Vote money is not the full answer to our educational problems, but it is important. Expenditure on Scottish or United Kingdom education as a proportion of NP in 1974 was 6·6 per cent., which compares favourably with other countries. But whereas the proportion spent on education in other countries this year will take into account increased costs, inflation, and so on, the figure for 1975–6 in Scotland will be static.
I draw atention to the fact that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor) is present for this debate. I should like him to bear in mind a speech made by his previous Leader, the right hon. Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath), who, in the Scotsman of 15th December, is reported as having said:
Our primary task must be to tailor our educational policy for the 94 per cent. of children who have no choice and will never have any choice but to go to state schools, and it is there that we should channel our efforts and energies towards raising the standards of education.
In that context the Government do not appear to be taking into consideration the real needs of the community. If we intend to improve education and our society—and I speak as a Member for the Strathclyde Region—how are we going to tackle the real needs of the area, which lacks in social expenditure and is well known for its deprivation.
In the Scotsman on 16th September the Secretary of State for Scotland said that the Strathclyde Region had the gravest teacher shortage of any local authority in the United Kingdom and that the present serious accommodation problem could become disastrous in five years unless there was a substantial increase in capital expenditure on school buildings. That was in the document prepared for the Strathclyde Region, which makes it clear that in Strathclyde the biggest single problem is a shortage of 1,425 teachers. This figure is based on national standards. The region needs to exceed those standards, particularly in deprived areas, if there is to be a significant improvement in the quality of the educational service.
I recognise that since 16th September there has been an improvement. Councillor Harley, the convenor of the Strathclyde Education Committee, recognised that and in the Scottish Educational

Journal on 21st November he said that he saw the region's primary schools being staffed to national standards within the next recruiting year and that within two years there would be a full complement in the secondary sector, although there might be specialist shortages. The Journal article said:
Councillor Harley told reporters that there were still considerable problems of staff distribution, but, as the authority's policy of not recruiting beyond Red Book standards worked its way through, it would achieve a better spread of the teaching force being recruited.
It went on:
The current figures showed that, in primary education, the region had pretty well reached the right level, although there were still areas of under-staffing and over-staffing. The secondary staff shortage of 1,025 had been reduced to 600.
Does the Under Secretary of State think that the Red Book standards are adequate to cater for the needs of schoolchildren? In my constituency the application of these standards has meant severe shortages in specialist subjects. This causes problems for both parents and teachers.
Mr. John Pollock, General Secretary of the Educational Institute of Scotland, said:
Despite all our existing problems in education, we have the most highly qualified teaching profession in the world. That profession has the ability to once again raise Scottish teaching standards to their former pre-eminence in world education.
I am disappointed that in Scotland, where we had a very good reputation for high educational standards, we have been reduced to this level, I emphasise the Strathclyde dimension because it is an area of social and educational deprivation. I pay tribute to the Minister because he has shown sympathy towards the region's problem.
A Department of Environment report showed that 97·5 per cent. of the areas of worst multiple deprivation were in the Strathclyde Region—115 out of 121. We must surely be deeply concerned if we want to improve the standards for our children, and despite what Councillor Harley and his colleagues have said, we are still very short of teachers. I recognise that the pupil/teacher ratio is not too bad in the Strathclyde Region, but many schools have shortages in certain specialities. The Houghton Report may have made teaching more attractive, but there is still a shortage of the right


calibre and number required. Jordanhill College of Education this year found its intake of graduates down by 21 per cent. This shortage is worse in the urban areas. Glasgow currently still needs 130 primary school teachers and 190 secondary school teachers.
I am not alone in feeling as I do about the problems of Scottish education or about the Strathclyde Region. The Scottish Educational Journal of 28th November quotes Councillor Foulkes, of the Lothian Region, as referring to a conference of groups united against cuts in educational expenditure:
He warned that, if the Government insisted on cuts, the authorities would have to consider charges for nursery schools, substantially higher fees for further education and severe curtailment of spending on books and paper at a time when costs were soaring. Even then, the authorities would not achieve the savings being suggested.
This, from a member of the Minister's own party.
This is very depressing. The Labour Party, while it seems to be concerned about working-class people and their children, has done little to ensure that working-class children can take advantage of the benefits of education. A recent survey by Strathclyde University showed that in 1972 the middle class were sending 71·8 per cent. of students to university, while in 1962 the figure was only 66·1 per cent. This shows that cuts in educational expenditure are affecting the working class most severely.
Beyond this there is the problem of adult education. I find it depressing that something as imaginative as Ken Alexander's report should have been so badly treated by the Government. There is little hope that the educational budget envisaged in this Vote will help the SED to implement its major recommendations. In its policy statement of this month, the Educational Institute of Scotland says:
It is all the more depressing therefore to read in the circular in which the Secretary of State commended the report to education authorities and other bodies that 'current financial constraints will affect the rate at which the expansion of adult education proposed in the report can be implemented and authorities and other interests are therefore asked to consider particularly those recommendations which would not require additional expenditure'. The Institute hopes the Government will seize the earliest opportunity to give the implementation of the report its unstinted support …

The report rightly singles out for prior attention the needs of individuals and groups with special problems, among them young mothers, the elderly, those working unsocial hours, immigrants, rural and isolated communities, and the disadvantaged, including the illiterate or semi-illiterate, the handicapped and the inmates of penal establishments. The inadequacy of existing provision is most starkly exemplified in the fact that the penal system which is supposed to have a rehabilitative function, has only five trained full-time teachers, that most of what teaching is provided in prisons, and there appears to be precious little, is done by unqualified prison officers and that any progress they achieve with a prisoner is quiclky dissipated on his release because there is no follow-up. This is a shameful and intolerable sitution.
That is a shameful and intolerable situation.
Turning to part-time education, the Under-Secretary last week attacked the Scottish National Party for putting forward the figure of 40,000 children on part-time education. I recognise that the official figure—the Government statistic—is 23,000, but, as an ex-teacher, I remind the Under-Secretary that many children in our schools are simply the subjects of child minding by teachers. Only recently I was myself minding classes in schools because there was no teacher available who was qualified in their subject. This is hidden part-time education, which is unacceptable to the vast majority of teachers and to the parents who genuinely want their children to be given an opportunity.

3.59 a.m.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: I congratulate the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mrs. Bain) not only on raising this subject and giving us an opportunity to discuss education, but also on making such an extremely good speech at four o'clock in the morning. She has certainly raised a number of important points. I hope that the Minister will also be able to answer some detailed points that I want to raise.
It must be unpleasant for the Minister to be dealing with Estimates such as those now before us. The Vote on Account makes it clear that we are a long way from the glorious Conservative days, when we could look to each successive year for a further step in educational progress, considering which aspects should be given priority. Unfortunately, we must now think in terms of limited progress,


made possible by cuts in other areas. There have been major cuts in capital expenditure, with local authorities being forced to cut back on the revenue side because of the Government's proposals on the rate support grant.
The hon. Lady referred to the problem of teacher supply. She quite rightly described the position of Strathclyde as acutely serious. Will the Minister say something about the teacher situation generally? There is an acute problem in some parts of the West of Scotland, with a lot of part-time education—about 20,000 children were affected at the last count—while in other areas it seems that the position is far from difficult.
The Secretary of State for Education gave a most revealing answer in the House, which showed that in England and Wales 3,911 teachers would be registered as unemployed in September. The indication was that the situation was likely to get worse, and there are plans south of the border, I understand, to cut recruitment to the teacher training colleges. In view of the remarkable upsurge in teacher recruitment, and also the fact that local authorities are being advised, in circulars from the Scottish Office, to cut back on teacher recruitment where the appropriate pupil/teacher ratio has been reached, is there any danger of the position in England and Wales spreading to Scotland? In other words, could 1976 be the first year for many years in which a substantial number of Scottish teachers are registered as unemployed?
It would be monstrous if teachers were unemployed in the East while a substantial number of children were on part-time education in the West. Successive Governments have sought to solve the problem of part-time education and shortages of teachers in particular areas by giving help with housing and removal expenses and by additional payments under the designated school system. Can progress now be made on a substantial payment for designated schools, whereby teachers are attracted to the areas of particular shortage? This idea has been under consideration for a long time. It must be a challenge to the Minister that he faces the prospect of a surplus of teachers in some parts of Scotland while there are shortages in other parts.

Mrs. Bain: Part of the problem in attracting teachers to these areas is the cut-back in the building programme, so that instead of £60 million being spent on building new schools the figure is now reduced to £39 million.

Mr. Taylor: There is no doubt that the cut-back in the capital building programme has contributed substantially to our problems. In some areas of the West of Scotland, certainly in my area, there is an acute teacher shortage in well-built new schools. The problem has been exacerbated by the Government's £6 limit on pay rises.
The hon. Lady referred to nursery schools. The last Conservative Government made dramatic advances in nursery education. Can the Minister say when day nursery education in Scotland will be available for those who want it? We accept that the age of nursery education is an age of real development for children. It is certainly good for them to go to nursery school. It is also good for the many young mothers who find it difficult to cope these days, particularly in some of the perimeter housing areas.
My fear is that because of the savage cut-backs in educational spending and growth which have been imposed by the Government we shall have a situation in which local authorities will be obliged to cut back on nursery education. This would be tragic, and I hope the Minister will use all his resources to ensure that that does not happen.
I shall certainly convey the hon. Lady's kind remarks to my right hon. Friend the Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath). However, I want to refer briefly to the grant-aided schools, which are very important. It is frightful that the problem of finance in Scottish education will be made more and not less difficult because of the Government's appalling policy of cutting back the grant-aided schools. The Minister admitted at Question Time recently that more pupils will be forced into the State sector of education simply because the fees in the grant-aided sector are being forced up year by year by the Government's policy.
The Minister said that in the Edinburgh area about 250 pupils would be forced to transfer, whereas the estimate that we received from our friends in Edinburgh is that that figure would be


considerably more. Whether it is 200, 300, 400 or 500, the fact remains that a great deal of educational disruption and hardship is being caused, and the Government's policy is creating an unfortunate situation in which freedom of choice in education is available only to a small minority on high incomes or to those parents who are prepared to make in some cases what are quite unreasonable sacrifices.
This is the first opportunity that the Minister has had to speak at length on the remarkable decision about the Mary Erskine School. Together with English grant-aided schools, Scottish schools were offered the opportunity of going either public or private. They were given the chance of becoming independent schools or of being integrated into the State system. In Edinburgh a substantial number of schools are run by the Merchant Company. It was decided that one of its schools should be integrated into the local authority network and that the money raised from the sale of that building should be used to limit the fees in the remaining grant-aided schools or to offer more scholarships. Apart from two other schools, which were virtually State schools anyway, this was the only school that took up the option of being absorbed into the public sector.
When the Conservative-controlled Edinburgh local authority, which was glad that the decision had been made, decided to integrate the school into its school system, the Minister unfortunately refused to approve the borrowing consent whereby the Lothian Regional Council could buy over the Mary Erskine School. This shocked the local authority. Councillor Foulkes, who is, I understand, the convenor of the Lothian Regional Council, condemned the Government in spite of the fact that he is a member of the Labour Party. The people of Edinburgh, the Conservative Party, the Liberal Party and the Scottish National Party condemned the Government. When the Minister finds himself in a minority of one, it is high time that he looks at his position and considered whether he has made a mistake. If the offer of a choice for the grant-aided schools proves to be an empty one, not only are the Government's policies wrong but they are also bogus.

Mrs. Bain: Will the hon. Gentleman agree that this problem, great though it is, is small when compared to the situation in Glasgow in October 1974 when there were 682 mobile classrooms?

Mr. Taylor: I do not believe that any educational problem is small if it affects one child's education. I certainly agree that the problem of mobile classrooms is great. However, if a youngster has to have his or her education in the second or third year because of the Government's policy, over which we have no direct control, that is a human problem, as indeed are all problems of education. I therefore hope that the Minister will try to justify, or change, his monstrous attitude in this regard.
My second last question is to inquire whether the Minister will say something about the remarkable institution called the Scottish Examination Board. He will know that this is the body that controls our leaving certificate examinations and produces reports from time to time which contain interesting global figures. Because of the changes in the pattern of Scottish education, and because of the Government's policy of trying to insist on universal comprehensive education, I thought that it would be interesting to look at the report to see if there had been any change in the pattern of results, comparing the results as between different areas and as between comprehensive schools, independent schools and grant-aided schools. The reports of the Board do not give separate figures.
I therefore took the liberty of writing to the Board, which very courteously replied to the effect that unfortunately the information was not available in the form in which I was seeking it. Some time ago I wrote to the Minister seeking his help in this regard. I am awaiting the information, if it is available.
I am surprised, not at the delay in the Minister's replying, because he takes great trouble to ensure that the most complete and authoritative of replies are given, but that the information was not readily available and that apparently the officials of the Scottish Education Department had not sought this information from the Examination Board. If one of the officials of the Department had sought the information from the Board, I am sure that the Board would have been able to give


me the information when I asked for it. It is astonishing that, at a time of major change in the whole pattern of education in Scotland, no attempt should apparently, have been made to discover whether the comprehensive system, the grant-aided schools or the independent schools were achieving the better results. It is important for the Minister to use the Examination Board, not just as a means of disseminating examination papers and correcting them and publishing global statistics, but as a means of securing information which can be used to assess the value of the changes.
Taking up the hon. Lady's mention of the book "Small is Beautiful", it would be interesting to know whether the smaller schools have greater success than the larger schools, whether a school with 1,500 pupils has a very bad record in comparison with schools with 1,000 or 500 pupils. I am always astonished by the amount of information the Minister can provide in letters. But apparently the one piece of information which it is extremely important to know apparently is not available.
I accept, as I am sure that the Minister will, that examination results are not the be all and end all in education, but they are important and, as long as we have leaving certificate examinations—I do not think that there is yet any proposal by the Government to abolish them—it is important to be able to find whether the results of different sectors bear comparison.
Finally, will the Minister say something about a rather astonishing paragraph in the White Paper "Our Changing Democracy"—Cmnd. 6348, which was published in November? The White Paper says that the Government are contemplating the establishment of a Scottish Assembly and that responsibility for education will rest by and large with the Assembly, if it is set up. Paragraph 126 says:
The Scottish administration … will control the schools system in Scotland, and will be able if they wish to determine (for example) its standards and structure, its curricula, its attendance requirements such as age levels, and policy for private schools and nursery education.
The Minister must have been involved in these discussions. I wonder how much scope the Assembly would have if it took over responsibility for education from

this House. My understanding is that even if the £70 million about which we were talking was transferred to the Assembly under the block grant, the Assembly would have very little freedom. The only freedom that it would have is that if it spent a little more on education it would be able to decide whether to spend less on roads or libraries, or other services.
That kind of assessment is made not by the Government, but by local authorities. They decide their priorities and use their block grant as they see fit. The proposed Assembly will get a block grant in much the same way. That being so, what freedom will the Assembly have? According to the White Paper, all that it will do is to act as a clearing house for a block grant from the Treasury. The priorities will be decided not by the Assembly, but by the local authorities, just as they are now.
I hope that the Minister will take the opportunity to answer those five questions and the points raised by the hon. Lady in her excellent speech which enabled me to raise some matters with the Minister.

4.16 a.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Frank McElhone): I am grateful, as is the hon. Member for Glasgow. Cathcart (Mr. Taylor), to the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mrs. Bain) for initiating this debate this morning. She raised the question of educational expenditure in Scotland, and although the field that she has chosen is very wide I should like to start by saying that in the current year, 1975–76, expenditure on the education service in Scotland—apart from universities, which are not within the responsibility of my right hon. Friend—was forecast in Cmnd. 5879 "Public Expenditure to 1978–79", published at the beginning of this year, to amount to about £435 million, of which sum local authority expenditure, both current and capital, amounted to about £375 million, the balance being accounted for in the main by expenditure on grant-aided schools and colleges, for example the colleges of education and by student awards.
The hon. Lady raised a number of issues, but before dealing with them in some detail it might be helpful if I were first to review the future pattern of public


expenditure in the light of policy objectives and so far as it can at present be discerned.
Cmnd 5879, to which I have already referred, gave a forecast of expenditure up to the year 1978–79. The programmes for these years and for 1979–80 have been under review in the 1975 Public Expenditure Survey, the outcome of which will be announced in due course by means of the annual White Paper on public expenditure.
It has, however, been possible to take certain decisions in relation to the forthcoming programme year 1976–77. The hon. Lady may recall that in his Budget Statement on 15th April the Chancellor of the Exchequer indicated that it would be necessary to make reductions in the planned level of public spending in that year as forecast in Cmnd 5879. This would be achieved by reducing current expenditure on goods and services by 1½ per cent. and capital expenditure by 10 per cent. These restrictions would not apply to certain essential services such as the basic needs school building programme, or to certain services where the level of expenditure was determined by level of demand, for example students awards and school meals.
Against that background, however, the annual negotiations were started with the local authorities about the level of relevant expenditure to be taken into account for all services for the purpose of determining the rate support grant for 1976–77.
As the hon. Lady and the House know, these negotiations have been completed and the Rate Support Grant (Scotland) (No. 2) Order 1975 was laid before the House on 4th December, together with a Report—House of Commons Paper 17—of the underlying considerations leading to my right hon. Friend's decision on the level of relevant expenditure.
The Order was approved by the House on 15th December. In introducing it my right hon. Friend indicated that he had allowed a higher figure for local authority expenditure than had been planned following the Chancellor's announcement in April. The excess allowed was £26 million, of which some £8 million was accounted for by education. The reasons for the excess lay in the continuing commitments inherited from the old authorities,

and in the effects of local government reorganisation.
So far as local authority current expenditure in 1976–77 is concerned, the situation is now known to the education authorities. The main features of the settlement were given in the Report. A central consideration was the need to provide adequate staffing of schools—a point that the hon. Lady made. As she knows, this is costly, given the high proportion of staff costs to total expenditure.
The hon. Lady should recognise that staff standards have steadily improved over the past few years and we are now in sight of achieving nationally the standards for primary schools and secondary schools that were recommended in Education Department Circular No. 819 of 1972 and the "Red Book" on secondary staffing, respectively. We discussed this matter with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities in June and reached an agreement with the Convention that in the years 1975–76 and 1976–77 authorities should aim to reach, but not to exceed, these staffing standards. This agreement was subsequently incorporated in a Scottish Office Finance Circular—No. 64 of 1975—issued in October and it was reflected in the provision for teachers in the amount of "relevant expenditure" for 1976–77.
The hon. Lady rightly placed great stress on staffing levels in Scottish schools, particularly in Strathclyde. Perhaps I may help her by repeating one or two figures that I gave at a Press conference. Some of the hon. Lady's figures were not quite accurate.
Taking the primary sector to begin with, in 1974 we had a surplus of 36 teachers. As at 1st September this year we had a surplus of 1,096 teachers in Scottish primary schools; that is excluding remedial and visiting teachers. In the secondary sector of Scottish schools we were short of 552 teachers as at 1st September last year. As at 1st September this year we had a surplus of 416 teachers.
However, there is a difficulty, as the hon. Lady rightly points out. We have some well-staffed areas. Some are staffed above the "Red Book" standards. But Strathclyde is still suffering from problems of secondary school staffing.

Mrs. Bain: I recognise that on paper we appear to have a substantial number


of teachers. However, does the hon. Gentleman agree that we should be aiming at much smaller class sizes, which most teachers would find educationally more advantageous to children? Does he also agree that at the end of the day resources must come in not merely in terms of teachers but in increases in the amount of money available for per capita expenditure within the schools? That is increasingly important. Teachers are complaining bitterly that they cannot get the required jotters, books and equipment because prices are escalating so quickly within these sectors that one can put in a requisition for books at 50p each and by the time they arrive they cost 80p. This is causing great problems.

Mr. McElhone: The main question was about the pupil/teacher ratio. In primary and secondary schools that ratio is now the best that it has ever been. I hope that the Scottish National Party will recognise the efforts made in that particularly important aspect of education.
The hon. Lady specifically referred to the Strathclyde Region. In the primary sector last year Strathclyde was short of 400 primary school teachers. Now we have a surplus of 100 primary school teachers in that area. As we all know, the difficulty is one of trying to persuade teachers to come down from the Grampians and across from the Lothians into Strathclyde.
It is hard for mothers in Glasgow and other parts of Strathclyde to read the figures I gave at Monday's Press conference, showing that there is staffing above agreed standards in the Lothian and Grampian area, when their sons and daughters are on part-time education. I understand parents' feelings. I have been working hard with the Department—with the assistance of the Strathclyde Regional Education Authority, for which I am grateful—to tackle some of the problems in Glasgow. With the co-operation of Strathclyde we have been quite successful in certain schools. I am sure that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart will acknowledge that we have put some effort into his area, where a secondary school is suffering part-time education.
The difficulties of education planners in trying to estimate future needs for staff and school buildings over the next few years should be recognised. The number of pupils in the primary sector has

dropped by 14,000 in the past three years, yet we have increased the number of teachers by 3,000. These are significant figures. The number of pupils in the primary sector is expected to be down by 87,000 in 1979, compared with 1972.
The hon. Lady rightly talked about how best to use resources. I must look ahead and ask "What is the best way to use resources when the birth rate in Scotland is dropping dramatically each year and numbers in the primary schools are dropping continually?" We want to improve standards, but we already have the best pupil/teacher ratio that we have ever had in Scottish schools.

Mrs. Bain: We must aim at smaller classes, which means more teachers. We should not be complacent about the situation. Many of us who have been in the teaching profession realise that the smaller the class size the better, from the point of view of giving a child the opportunity of a good education. We should not sit back and say that everything is looking all right.

Mr. McElhone: Nobody is saying that everything looks rosy. We shall not be satisfied until every child is in full-time education and we have class sizes that bring out the best in children. But the hon. Lady must give the Government some credit. We are in a difficult situation. We have increased the number of teachers in both the primary and secondary sectors by about 1,000. We have the best-ever teacher/pupil ratio in Scottish schools. The effort being made by the Department and local authorities must be recognised. It would be churlish of the hon. Lady not to recognise the supreme effort made by many people who are interested in Scottish education.
This year we have 164 primary teachers above the agreed standards in Dunbarton, an educational division within the Strathclyde Region. Those standards were agreed at a meeting between the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and my Department in June. We are 32 teachers short in the secondary sector in that area, but that is an improvement on last year, when the area was 46 short. The total number in Dumbarton is 1,538, so 32 is not a big percentage—but I take the point that the shortage is a cause of great concern, and we intend to do something about it.
It is also significant that current expenditure on non-teaching costs—the costs of staff other than teachers, and expenditure on maintenance, heating, lighting, rates, books, equipment and so on—has been rising substantially over the past two years, 1974–75 and 1975–76. In schools the improvement in unit costs per pupil has amounted to 13 per cent., and in further education the improvement per student has amounted to 5½ per cent. There is an indication of substantial percentage increases in improvements in the sectors of lighting, books and equipment, which are all important parts of the education structure. The hon. Lady must recognise that we are not satisfied, although those are real improvements.
I turn now to capital expenditure in 1976–77. We shall ensure, as the Chancellor indicated in his statement of 15th April, to which I have already referred, that provision will be made for essential school places. We must put that firmly on the record. There is no reduction in essential school places—namely, roofs over heads. They have not been cut by the statement made by my right hon. Friend on 15th April.
To help the authorities with the forward planning of capital programmes, we announced last February, along with the building starts for 1975–76, the provisional starts for 1976–77. The provisional start figures include the £30 million that has been approved for additional primary and secondary school places, which I recently announced. As basic needs are not affected it is clear that the bulk of the programme will be able to go ahead.
My right hon. Friend has not yet been able to make an announcement about special schools or improvements in that sector, but that information will be contained in the White Paper. There is a fair number of special school projects going ahead in Scotland, and I mention just three. There is the St. Giles School for the Partially Deaf in Edinburgh for which a tender of £898,000 has been approved. In the Grampian Region a tender of £877,000 has been accepted for the Cordyce School for Maladjusted Children. In Glasgow a tender of £429,000 has been accepted for the St.

Keven's School for Mentally Handicapped Children. On a smaller scale, although still important, in the hon. lady's area of Dunbartonshire we have approved a new classroom at Elmwood School for Partially Deaf Children, at a cost of £15,479. A new audiology unit has been approved at Hamilton, at a cost of £114,000.
In spite of the severe financial constraints within which we are working, and in spite of the difficulties that the Government have had to face over the past two years, we have gone ahead with these important sectors of education and ensured improvements, especially in terms of special schools and schools for handicapped children. We have demonstrated our regard for the problems faced by those children. I hope that the hon. Lady will recognise that we are not complacent. We are trying to provide as much as we can for education, given the financial constraints within which the Government have to work.
The hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart referred to nursery schools. I think that everyone will agree that that is an important sector of education. A programme of nursery schools has been authorised to the value of £6·9 million in the period of 12 months to 30th September 1976. This will provide 9,000 places and will be a substantial help to areas in Strathclyde which are in grievous need of facilities such as nursery schools and additional education projects.
For 1975–76 the programme for new starts amounts to £39·6 million. The amount of work that can be started by education authorities in the financial year 1975–76 will be considerably greater than that sum. That is because ground was lost as a result of a moratorium imposed by the previous Conservative Government on building starts in October-December 1973. As a result, the 1974–75 programme ran for the four quarters to 30th June 1975, so overlapping by one quarter the 1975–76 programme which started in April 1975. Thus, in the 1975–76 financial year it is open to authorities to start both parts of the 1974–75 programme and the whole of the 1975–76 programme. I apologise to the hon. Lady if those details seem slightly confusing. They indicate that extra building can take place because of


the moratorium imposed by the previous Government.
Representations have been made by Glasgow Trades Council about Strathclyde being allocated only £13·3 million for school building in 1975–76 and £11 million for 1976–77 compared with the £33 million asked for.
The following points should be noted about the Strathclyde allocations. The sum of £13·3 million for 1975–76, which is a firm figure, is for primary and secondary schools only. In addition the region has £4 million for nursery schools and £1·5 million for special schools. The figure of £11 million for 1976–77 is provisional and we are awaiting the outcome of the White Paper, publication of which is expected shortly.
On the side of building for further education, our aim will be to continue to cope with the demand stemming from the rising trend in numbers pursuing non-advanced vocational studies, both full-time and part-time. In the sphere of advanced full-time courses we shall also seek to continue to expand facilities.
I also wish to put on record some of the projects involving further education. In regard to the central institutions, Paisley College of Technology Phase III has just started at a cost of £1·4 million; Leith Nautical College was started early in 1974 at a cost of £4 million; a hostel at Robert Gordon's College of Technology has just started, at a cost of £300,000.
As for colleges of further education, Cumbernauld Technical College—which is in the hon. Lady's constituency—is on the point of completion, at a cost of £1 million; Clinterty Agricultural College has just been completed, at a cost of £500,000; Aberdeen Technical College extension was started in May 1975, at a cost of £2·2 million, despite financial restraints; and Dumfries Technical College extension was started at the end of last year, at a cost of £800,000.
I hope that the hon. Lady and the hon. Gentleman will pay some regard to the fact that we are going through a period of severe financial restraint, but the Government and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland are pressing local authorities to maximise the use of existing resources to ensure that Scotland

gets as much as it can within the financial constraints.
I hope that what we have put on record this morning is not a dismal picture. I agree that it is not an entirely happy situation, because we are never content. My aspirations lie in improving educational standards year by year. I remind the House that we have the best pupil/teacher ratio we have ever experienced in Scottish schools, we have 1,000 extra teachers in secondary and primary schools, and we are pursuing projects such as I have outlined in central institutions, colleges of further education and special schools. This is some indication that we are earnest in our endeavours to keep Scottish education to the forefront of the nation's affairs.
I thank the hon. Lady for initiating this debate. I also wish to thank the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart for being present at four o'clock in the morning to put various points to me. I should be failing in my duty if I did not comment on one or two of those points.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: The hour is late, and I should be quite happy if the Minister would prefer to deal with those matters by correspondence.

Mr. McElhone: Perhaps I should put two matters on the record. I wish, first, to mention Scottish examination boards. I want to be as honest and open in this job as I possibly can. I could have given the figures for 1973, but I thought that that was not good enough. I thought that we should seek to give as much informations as possible to Back-Bench Members of Parliament, in whatever party they may be, because the better informed hon. Members are, the better able they will be to understand the difficulties with which the Government have to contend.
I investigated the situation and was told that the 1974 figures would not be published until the spring of 1976. Nevertheless, we took a decision that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart should have the figures in advance of publication. I think that that is a very generous attitude displayed by the Government to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: The Minister mentioned the 1974 figures. Is he referring to the session commencing in


1974 and to examinations set in 1975 or those set in 1974?

Mr. McElhone: I must be careful in references to where the examinations fall, and just how these figures are gathered, but I shall try to give the hon. Member the most up-to-date figures available. I hope to write to him very shortly, before the end of the year if possible, and I hope that he will be satisfied with the progress of comprehensive education in Scotland.
As the Prime Minister has said, the great debate on the Scottish Assembly has started. I hope that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart and his hon. Friends will take part in the debate and help to ensure that the White Paper becomes a good Bill, which will satisfy the aspirations of the people of Scotland and ensure that the bogus claim that they want a separate Scotland will not be accepted.

Orders of the Day — DRIVER AND VEHICLE LICENSING

4.41 a.m.

Mr. Robert Taylor: As this is the last debate on these Supplementary Estimates, I shall endeavour to be as brief as possible, but it is perhaps appropriate for me to express the thanks of the House to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for the patience you have shown tonight and to thank the Minister for his presence. I apologise if I am the sole reason for his having to stay on, but it is right that we should examine the extra expenditure which is being asked for the economic and financial administration of the driver and vehicle licensing service.
This is a very large amount of extra money and its provision has already been criticised by the Comptroller and Auditor General in the Appropriation Accounts 1973–74 and in the recent Fourth Report of the Public Accounts Committee, of which I had the privilege of being a member.
Despite criticism from these two sources, we are asked to approve £10,978,000, which represents a 30 per cent. increase on the original estimate. In 1973–74, total expenditure on these services was £22,280,679. In 1974–75 it had risen to £32,621,000 and the estimate for 1975–76 is now £46,913,000. Expenditure has more than doubled in two years.
At the meeting of the Public Accounts Committee on 23rd April, the Second Permanent Secretary at the Department said:
… we reckon that the running costs of the new system at 1974 prices, from 1978, will be between £28 million and £30 million a year.
I know that a slight decrease in the number of staff is anticipated from 1980 onwards—the Second Secretary said it would be about 10 per cent.—but even allowing for the fact that there may be some reduction in costs, the figures in front of us tonight do not suggest that the expenditure will be contained to anything like the figures suggested by the Second Secretary. At the present rate of progress next year's expenditure is likely to be between £55 million and £60 million.
That is an unhappy story. All the estimates for this service have been wildly inaccurate and widely under-costed. If a private enterprise spent in excess of estimates in this manner it would go bust.
There is a lack of control over the scheme. According to the Comptroller and Auditor General's Report for 1973–74, when the scheme was originally envisaged the estimate was for 20 million vehicle licences a year and 3,950 personnel at an annual cost of £9,270. That figure was later revised to 5,431 personnel at a cost of £12 million, but the latest estimate is 7,961 personnel, the number of licences having decreased to 17 million. These figures demand an explanation. In an earlier debate on the Adjournment today attention was drawn to the increase in the number of civil servants throughout the country. In this service the growth is alarming. We cannot go on nodding through extra sums—within a hair's breadth of £11 million tonight—without an explanation why the money is necessary.
I shall be grateful to the Minister if he will answer one or two specific questions. Will he tell us when the scheme will be fully operative and when the duplication of offices will be eliminated. We should be given a definite date.
What is the latest estimate of the number of personnel required when the duplication is eliminated? Will the Minister give an estimate of the annual costs and tell us whether they have changed since the estimate given in evidence to the Public Accounts Committee?


How many people are now employed in this department? Is the progression continuing as rapidly as it has done over recent years?
Why were the original estimates 30 per cent. under-costed? It is not long since they were produced, and they were wildly inaccurate. After such a short time the Minister comes back and asks for a further 30 per cent. over and above the large figure already approved.
Are the Department still relying on the advisers who originally estimated that a staff of 3,950 would be required and that the annual cost would be £9,270? If he is, it is time they were changed.
Does the Minister believe that the computerised system to which we have moved has diminished the number of untaxed vehicles on the road? We all know that there is a considerable number of vehicles at the kerbside not displaying tax discs.
Does the Chancellor of the Exchequer's famous ceiling on expenditure, to which he referred in his Budget Statement, relate to this project? It does not appear to do so. We have been told that there is a ceiling on expenditure in the Departments, but we are faced with an uplift of 30 per cent. for a small project in terms of the Department's overall responsibility.
Finally, I ask the Minister—I shall attach a great deal of importance to his reply—whether he has personally visited Swansea where all this money is being spent and whether he has been down there during this financial year in order to satisfy himself that this total expenditure of £46,913,000 is justified?

4.50 a.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Gordon Oakes): By leave of the House, I should like to reply. May I say how grateful I am to the hon. Member for Croydon, North-West (Mr. Taylor) for raising the question of the economic and financial administration of the driver and vehicle licensing centre?
The hon. Gentleman is not responsible for keeping me up. Another of his hon. Friends has the Adjournment debate. Consequently I am answering this debate, which is a little outside my normal scope. As a Minister in the Department of the Environment I do not normally stray into transport matters, but I hope

to be able to answer some of the questions posed by the hon. Gentleman.
Dealing with his final question first, I point out that I have not visited the centre. My hon. Friend, who has recently been appointed Under-Secretary, will no doubt take an interest in the centre and may well visit it.
I know of the hon. Gentleman's interest as a member of the Committee on Public Accounts which considered this subject in April this year. I have read with interest the proceedings of the Committee and its Report. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman, as his speech clearly revealed, has also seen the Treasury minute replying to it last month.
On the centralisation of driver and vehicle licensing, the main point made by the Committee—and very fairly made—is that lessons derived should be applied to future computer projects. In particular, the Committee asks that more attention be given to preliminary studies, planning and the preparation of reliable estimates of cost. This will certainly be the case. Indeed, as long ago as 1970, in the light, among other matters, of experience of the Swansea project, the Central Computer Agency introduced a manual which is now used in all such cases and emphasises very much these points.
The Committee and the hon. Gentleman also referred to the large increase in the estimated cost of the project since its first conception in the early 1960s. The Press reports showed some misconceptions of what was entailed in these increases and I should like to deal with one or two apparent misapprehensions which were not put forward by the hon. Gentleman but which did appear in some Press reports.
Let me make it clear to the House and the hon. Gentleman that I in no way seek to excuse the poor quality of the original estimates. However, there have been suggestions—although not by the Committee itself—that there has been waste of public money. I hope to convince the House that that is certainly not the case.
My first point is that the very large money figures quoted in paragraph 35 of the Report do not represent an additional cost that has fallen upon Government funds through introduction of the


new system. They represent for the most part the total staff costs of dealing with driver and vehicle licensing over the 12 to 14 years from 1968, when the firm decision to go ahead was taken, to completion of the change in the early 1980s. It is that period of time to which the figures relate.
So the figures in that paragraph do not represent a cost that would have been avoided by persisting with the old system. The old system itself required large and increasing numbers of staff, and if it had been retained its cost, totalled over 14 years, would have been similarly large. And of course the cost, in that case also, would have risen steeply over the years as wage rates increased.
My second point is that fundamental reorganisation was in any event totally unavoidable. The old system, with its records dispersed among 200 local authorities all over the country, would clearly not be able to cope with the constantly growing load upon it. It could not provide the comprehensive and up-to-date records needed to deal with evasion of Vehicle Excise Duty, which the hon. Gentleman mentioned, or with crimes associated with the use of vehicles. Those concerned looked for a system that would be more effective and, if possible, cheaper. The second objective has not been achieved, but the first objective of a more effective system is well on the way to realisation.
The main increase in estimated costs has arisen because the need for supporting staff to process and correct information going into the computers and to deal with inquiries, and so on, was badly underestimated at the early stages. Like many others who have put into service large computer projects over the past decade, both in this country and abroad, the Government have had to learn from experience not to minimise the problems of clerical support for massive centralised systems. However, the licensing operation based at Swansea is already beginning to offer the public a standard of service which compares well with the old local system and to give far better assistance to the police in the prevention of crime. It is doing this at a cost which, although the figures may seem large, is by no means exorbitant.
I know that the hon. Member is also interested in the Supplementary Estimates for 1975–76, particularly the additional £11 million in Class XIII going to the driver and vehicle licensing system. Perhaps it would be useful if I first sketched the general background before dealing with the detail of that £11 million.
Hon. Members on both sides of the House, and people in the country as a whole, are all too well aware that we are living in a time of unprecedented inflation which the Government are taking very strong action to bring under control. This is not the occasion for a discussion of that action, but one inevitable consequence is increases in wages.
The Driver and Vehicle Licensing Centre is a very large-scale clerical operation, staffed by civil servants who, in common with most other workers, have been given salary increases recently. Much of the Supplementary Estimate is required to pay these increases.
Thus, sub-head A1 provides for an increase of £4·5 million, from £16 million to £20·5 million. Of this, £2·7 million is acounted for by salary increases as a consequence of the Civil Service pay awards granted on 1st January and 1st April this year. These salary increases also had consequences for national insurance contributions. A further £1·4 million went on general expenses, the bulk of it paying for the increases in postal charges in March and October.
Sub-head A2 is payments for agency services on driver and vehicle licensing. Of this, £4·4 million went to local authorities, whose staff also had a pay award in July and whose general expenses suffer like the rest from inflation; £1·9 million went to the Post Office as a consequence of a renegotiated agreement this year, approved by the Treasury, for the services at 1,800 post offices up and down the country; and £200,000 went to Northern Ireland Departments. The hon. Member will know that from 1st January 1974 the responsibility for collection of excise duty upon which registration depends, which was formerly a responsibility of the Northern Ireland Administration, was transferred to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Northern Ireland Constitution Act. We are still using the Northern Ireland staff for this function on an agency basis. They had a pay award in July this year and


we have also got to pay increased general expenses and the special costs of security.
Sub-head A3 is increased costs of medical and legal services. Largely this is a consequence of the additional medical activity resulting from the "Till 70" licences to be introduced next year, and under which there will be a responsibility on drivers to inform the Secretary of State of any possible disabilities. This arrangement will mean additional medical activity and additional staff to cope with it.
The hon. Member asked, for example, about the exact date on which the full scheme would come into operation, the total staff and the annual costs. I undertake to ensure that my hon. Friend will supply that information as soon as possible to the hon. Gentleman by letter. He asked about the position on advisers, and here, too, I shall see that he is supplied with the necessary information.
It is right that there should be rigorous and keen examination of the estimates covered by the Bill in the way followed by the hon. Member for Croydon, North-West, and the whole House should be grateful to him.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House; immediately considered in Committee, pursuant to the Order of the House this day; reported, without amendment.

Motion made, and Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 93 (Consolidated Fund Bills), and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

Orders of the Day — STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 73A (Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.),

VALUE ADDED TAX

That the Value Added Tax (Processing) (Jewellery) Order 1975 (S.I., 1975, No. 2014), a copy of which was laid before this House

on 4th December, be approved.—[Mr. Walter Harrison.]

That the Value Added Tax (Processing) (Boats) Order 1975 (S.I., 1975, No. 2015), a copy of which was laid before this House on 4th December, be approved.—[Mr. Walter Harrison.]

That the Value Added Tax (Food) Order 1975 (S.I., 1075, No. 2013), a copy of which was laid before this House on 4th December, be approved.—[Mr. Walter Harrison.]

That the Value Added Tax (Exhibition Sites) Order 1975 (S.I., 1975, No. 2009), a copy of which was laid before this House on 4th December, be approved.—[Mr. Walter Harrison.]

That the Value Added Tax (Electronic Organs) Order 1975 (S.I., 1975, No. 2004), a copy of which was laid before this House on 4th December, be approved.—[Mr. Walter Harrison.]

That the Value Added Tax (Education) Order 1975 (S.I., 1975, No. 2008), a copy of which was laid before this House on 4th December, be approved.—[Mr. Walter Harrison.]

That the Value Added Tax (Containers) (Variation) Order 1975 (S.I., 1975, No. 2012), a copy of which was laid before this House on 4th December, be approved.—[Mr. Walter Harrison.]

That the Value Added Tax (Construction of Buildings etc.) (No. 3) Order 1975 (S.I., 1975, No. 2011), a copy of which was laid before this House on 4th December, be approved.—[Mr. Walter Harrison.]

That the Value Added Tax (Aircraft) Order 1975 (S.I., No. 2006), a copy of which was laid before this House on 4th December, be approved.—[Mr. Walter Harrison.]

SUGAR

That this House takes note of Commission Document No. R/2357/75 relating to Sugar.—[Mr. Walter Harrison.]

Question agreed to.

Orders of the Day — EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT (MEMBERSHIP)

Ordered,
That Mr. John Corrie be discharged from membership of the European Parliament and that Mr. Alexander Fletcher be designated a member of the European Parliament—[Mr. Walter Harrison.]

Ordered,
That this Order be a Standing Order of the House.—[Mr. Walter Harrison.]

ADJOURNMENT

Motion made, and Question proposed. That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Thomas Cox.]

Orders of the Day — PUBLIC BODIES (PLANNING PROCEDURES)

5.4 a.m.

Mr. Richard Luce: Without any shadow of doubt the House will agree that this is an uncivilised hour, and I am indeed grateful to the Minister for being here to answer the debate. I hope that the nature of the hour will prompt him to respond to the proposals and views that I shall put forward.
My main purpose is to ask the Government whether they will introduce a comprehensive code of practice on planning matters relating specifically to Government organisations and agencies and nationalised industries. The reason is that there have been two serious mistakes by Government organisations in the last few months and years in my constituency. I want to take examples from both to show what went wrong.
The first is the example of the Washington gas pressure reducing station. It started in 1968, when the then Gas Board made a proposal for a gas pressure reducing station between the village of Washington and the All, with a view to making this part of the high-pressure gas grid system. The assurance was given by the Board that the construction would be underground except for a concrete cover of about 6 in above ground level, although it warned of the possible need, later on, to construct a boiler house. As things stood then, this plan came into the category of what is known as "permitted development by a statutory undertaker" on operational land under the 1971 Town and Country Planning Act and the General Development Order. Because of this it was exempted from normal planning procedures.
Because of flooding problems, the Gas Board later produced a revised specification and decided that it was necessary to construct works above ground. It assumed that this was still permitted development. It seems that some confusion then arose and that the then planning authority—the Chanctonbury

District Council—objected to the Gas Board's proposals, by which stage time was running out, because construction above ground was already going ahead.
The Gas Board responded and in August 1971 put in a planning application. But it was put in after the virtual completion of the construction of these works above ground. The local authority, for whatever reason—I suppose because it felt that it would be involved in the payment of considerable sums of compensation—decided to grant planning permission because it was faced with a fait accompli.
The result is that we now have a highly objectionable eyesore in an area of outstanding natural beauty adjacent to the South Downs Way. The environment in the area has been spoiled, to the detriment not just of the local community but of all those who enjoy walks on the South Downs Way. Inevitably, the distinguished Society of Sussex Downs-men made its representations and protests to me and others and at my request the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration looked into the matter.
The Parliamentary Commissioner reported in Febuary 1975. One has to remember that his terms of reference allow him to look into maladministration by Government Departments but not by nationalised industries or planning authorities. Not surprisingly, he exonerated the Government Department but, in my view, by implication, he said that the blame for what happened must lie in other areas. By implication that must be the gas authority and possibly even the planning authority. Paragraph 18 of his report is significant. It says:
The Department have communicated to me that the whole planning system depends on the assumption that the local planning authorities on the one hand, and the public and private developers on the other hand, will exercise their functions responsibly in accordance with procedures which have been laid down. There is evidence that the system faltered in this case.
That is the important point of his con elusions.
The second case concerns Southlands Hospital, Shoreham-by-Sea. The area health authority produced plans to extend one of the ward blocks. People living in that area welcomed the plans, because any proposals to increase hospital facilities are in their interests. Government


hospitals are defined as being built on Crown land, which is exempt from normal planning procedures. The developed was submitted by the health authorities to the then Shoreham Urban District Council in January 1973. However, a subsequent site survey led to an alteration in the dimensions of that plan and the new proposed block was about 16 ft. nearer the site boundary than was originally anticipated. The discrepancy between the original proposal and the altered dimensions was not properly brought to the attention of the local authority and the construction went ahead.
As a result, residents living nearby, particularly those living in Crown Road adjacent to the hospital, suffered a greater loss of amenity, a greater loss in the value of their properties and greater inconvenience than would otherwise have been the case. Mr. Cox, one of the residents in that road, said in a letter to me:
We are not anti-hospital, but we are protesting strongly against the way the Government department has destroyed our privacy, our environment and the value of our property without consultation.
In both these examples Government organisations went ahead with development plans which were subsequently altered to the detriment of the local community and without adequate consultation procedures.
Such mistakes and actions by Government organisations should never be allowed to happen again, either in my constituency or in any other part of the country. I am forced to conclude that the growing number of bureaucratic Government organisations, agencies, nationalised industries and bodies of one kind or another can—we see examples here—steam-roller their development plans through without adequately consulting those people who really matter—the people who live in the area.
I ask the Minister to find a way of ensuring that such mistakes never happen again. I can make only a few short recommendations to him. First, I suggest that he needs to review all the planning procedures related to Government organisations of one kind or another—and obviously, because of the two cases that I cited, I have in mind planning procedures relating to statutory undertakers, which include nationalised industries, and Crown land, which, I understand,

includes certain Government Departments—with a view to discovering whether the procedures are adequate.
Secondly, I suggest that the Government produce a consolidated and comprehensive code of practice on planning matters related to all Government organisations—a code that is made available to local authorities and the public at large. I suspect and accept that the Minister will say that circulars are and have been issued by the Department of the Environment which are codes of practice, although they are purely advisory. I accept that many different circulars are issued. My argument is that those circulars are purely piecemeal, and that we need a consolidated and comprehensive code of practice which relates to all Government organisations.
That leads me to my third point, and the dilemma that we face. I seriously wonder whether the planning procedures relating to Government organisations as they exist at present need to be tightened up and in many respects made mandatory.
Fourthly, I ask the Government to ensure that there is more publicity and consultation by Government Departments when they go ahead with planning proposals.
I imagine that the Minister will also refer to the Dobry Report on the Development Control System which was produced earlier this year. That Report recommended a consolidated policy for guidance on planning procedures and greater publicity and consultation in the planning area. This, clearly, must apply as much to Government organisations as to private and other developers.
Mr. Deputy Speaker, for you and the Minister this has undoubtedly been a long, hard night, but it will have been well spent if the Government are prepared to learn the lessons from the two crucial mistakes that have been made by Government bodies in my constituency. I ask the Minister to seek ways of ensuring that such mistakes never happen again.

5.18 a.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Gordon Oakes): The hon. Member for Shoreham (Mr. Luce) has brought to the attention of the House a subject which is of interest not only to his constituents but to all those concerned with the working of the planning system.
The particular cases that the hon. Gentleman mentioned have already been the subject of quite a lot of correspondence between him and myself and my predecessor.
I shall deal with the two quite different developments that he mentioned in reverse order. The first is the development at Southlands Hospital, Shoreham. The two developments have been undertaken by quite separate bodies, for entirely different purposes.
The development at Southlands Hospital is a current case on which the regional health authority and the local planning authority are actively engaged in discussions. If they are unable to reach agreement on the form of the development, the matter may be referred to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for decision on the planning issues.
At this stage, therefore, I would not wish to comment on the merits of the development at Southlands Hospital, but so far as the procedure is concerned, developments by Government Departments are dealt with by local planning authorities on the basis of the non-statutory consultation procedures outlined in DOE Circular 80/71. These procedures closely follow the statutory arrangements. In practice, these arrangements ensure that the majority of Crown development proposals are subjected to precisely the same consideration by local planning authorities as is equivalent private development.
These non-statutory arrangements are needed for Crown development in order to cater for the special situation and responsibilities of Government Departments for which Ministers are answerable in Parliament. For example, Circular 80 provides that the usual consultation procedures cannot fully apply to proposals involving national security.
However, most developments undertaken by Government Departments do not entail any security consideration and they are considered by local planning authorities in a similar way to any other development.
Circular 80 provides that before undertaking any development which would require planning permission if undertaken by any private developer, Government

Departments will consult local planning authorities showing them all necessary details and plans of their proposals. If the local planning authority and the developing Department are unable to agree on a particular development, there is provision in Circular 80 for the matter to be referred to my Department for decision.
Any such case would be considered on its planning merits, in the same way as any appeal arising out of the corresponding statutory framework and a non-statutory local inquiry may be held. In giving planning clearance to Crown development, local planning authorities are able to express their clearance as subject to such conditions as they would impose on an equivalent planning permission outside a Government Department.
The procedures set out in Circular 80/71 were examined by Mr. George Dobry, Q.C. in his recent very far-ranging review of the development control system. This thorough and wide-ranging review did not point to any weaknesses in the arrangements for providing an effective control over development by the Crown but, instead, suggested that the provisions of Circular 80 should be kept in line with the statutory procedures. It is our intention that this should be done.
The hon. Member suggests that there are not enough teeth in the current consultation procedures, especially as regards publicity. It is true that Circular 80 does not contain provisions exactly corresponding to the enforcement procedures which are available under the statutory system. However, there is no need for such provisions, because Crown bodies have undertaken to obtain planning clearance from local planning authorities for all their appropriate developments. This means that the need for enforcement should never arise.
The gas pressure reducing station south of Washington was built for the South-Eastern Gas Board. It has been the subject of much correspondence between the hon. Member and Ministers of the present Government and of the former Administration, in whose time the development was carried out. It has also been investigated by the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration, who reported in February this year.
As time is short, I shall not seek to describe in detail the planning system as it applies to statutory undertakers—of


which the Gas Board is one. Briefly, statutory undertakers are subject to planning control under the town and country planning legislation in much the same way as private concerns. Generally speaking, they need to obtain express planning permission for their developments, whilst certain classes of development, known as permitted development, are covered by a general planning permission given by the Town and Country Planning General Development Order. Similarly, private industrial undertakings enjoy a comparable GDO permission.
The Gas Board's original proposals for its pressure-reducing station were probably permitted development under the GDO, as the station was intended to be underground. This seems to have been accepted by the then local planning authority. Nevertheless, the Gas Board still consulted the planning authority and interested amenity bodies, such as the Sussex Downsmen, about its proposals at the planning stage in 1968.
However, the subsequent alteration of its plans, for compelling technical reasons in order to avoid flooding of its installation, meant that its development needed specific planning permission. The Gas Board submitted an application in August 1971. It was then open to the local planning authority to refuse or grant permission. It would also have been open to it to take enforcement action to secure the removal of the offending development.

Mr. Luce: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that when the gas authority made that planning application construction of the works above ground had already gone ahead without the authority having obtained planning permission?

Mr. Oakes: I accept that, and it was wrong that that happened, but it would have been open to the planning authority to take enforcement action on the development that had taken place above ground had it chosen to do so. In fact, the local planning authority decided to grant planning permission in October 1972, subject to conditions requiring a landscaping scheme.
There is specific provision in the town and country planning legislation to enable planning applications to be made in respect of developments already carried

out or begun. Indeed, in his report into this case the Parliamentary Commissioner comments that he is aware from other cases which he has investigated.
that private developers also often make belated applications for planning permission".
His conclusion was that while the system may have faltered in this case, the initiative as to whether the pressure reducing station should have been allowed rested with the local planning authority. He found that neither the Department of the Environment nor the Department of Energy was in default of its respective functions and responsibilities.
It is the case that the normal statutory development control procedures applied to this Gas Board development as they would have applied to any similar development by any private concern. The same enforcement provisions were available to the local planning authority. I find no grounds, on the evidence of this case, for singling out a nationalised statutory undertaker for any additional "code of conduct". There already is such a code for statutory undertakers on consultation and publicity matters—it was set out in DOE Circular 12/73. I believe that this code, taken in conjunction with the normal statutory arrangements which apply to statutory undertakers, is a sufficient safeguard to ensure the protection of high environmental standards.

Mr. Luce: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that in the two cases that we are examining two serious mistakes have been made by the respective Government organisations? If he accepts that, and if he also accepts that the present procedures are unsatisfactory, how can he ensure that such mistakes will never happen again?

Mr. Oakes: I do not accept that serious mistakes were made, in the sense that the hon. Gentleman is implying. What happened in the case of the reducer station can often happen with regard to a private developer when something goes wrong. In this case it was flooding, and it was open to the local planning authority, because it would have come out of GDO control, to take enforcement proceedings against any buildings that were being put up or to refuse planning consent for that development. I cannot guarantee—no Minister can—that no mistakes will ever be made.
The hon. Gentleman is unfortunate in that both these things should have happened within his constituency and that both should have involved Crown land and Government Departments. As this has happened to him, as it were, he has every right to look very closely at the system.
However, apart from what I have said about some of the remarks that Mr. Dobry made with regard to the general code, I do not think that the system, as a whole, is going seriously wrong. If this happened twice in my constituency I would consider it exceptionally unfortunate. The hon. Gentleman has been exceptionally unfortunate. I do not call these things mistakes, as such. I call

them changes of circumstance through force of events, which can happen to a private developer in the same way as it can happen to a public developer.
The Government and the Department of the Environment will continue to watch this whole system very carefully indeed, to ensure that mistakes, as the hon. Gentleman calls them, or unfortunate incidents, are reduced to the absolute minimum. No Minister could say that they will never occur at all, but I certainly give the hon. Gentleman that undertaking.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-nine minutes to Six o'clock a.m.